IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v10y2022i4p77-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

WhatsApp, Polarization, and Non-Conventional Political Participation: Chile and Colombia Before the Social Outbursts of 2019

Author

Listed:
  • Andrés Scherman

    (Department of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, Spain / School of Communication and Journalism, Adolfo Ibáñez University, Chile / Millennium Nucleus Center for the Study of Politics, Public Opinion, and Media in Chile, Chile)

  • Nicolle Etchegaray

    (School of Journalism, Diego Portales University, Chile / Research Center in Communication, Literature and Social Observation (CICLOS-UDP), Chile)

  • Magdalena Browne

    (School of Communication and Journalism, Adolfo Ibáñez University, Chile / Laboratory of Surveys and Social Analysis (LEAS), Adolfo Ibáñez University, Chile)

  • Diego Mazorra

    (Faculty of Social Communication–Journalism, Externado de Colombia University, Colombia)

  • Hernando Rojas

    (School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)

Abstract

Chile and Colombia are two South American countries with political and economic similarities that, during 2019, faced strong social outbursts, which translated into massive street protests and the weakening of their governments. Using data collected in the period immediately prior to the start of this social unrest, this study seeks to establish the role played by strong-tied social media—which are generally homogeneous, formed by close people, and with a high potential for influencing their members—in three phenomena associated with political conflict: (a) perceived political polarization, (b) affective polarization, and (c) non-conventional political participation. To estimate this influence, information collected through surveys in Chile in 2017 and Colombia in 2018 was used within the framework of the Comparative National Elections project. In both countries, probabilistic samples were employed to do face-to-face interviews with samples of over 1,100 people. In both countries, the results show that the use of social media with strong ties, specifically WhatsApp, tends to be related to two of the studied phenomena: perceived political polarization and non-conventional participation. An interaction is also observed between WhatsApp use and political ideology that amplifies the degree of perceived political polarization, affective polarization, and participation in one or both of the countries studied. We conclude by arguing that this dual phenomenon of polarization and participation can be problematic for democracy, since polarized groups (or groups that have the perception that there is ideological polarization in the political elite) tend to consider the position of the rest of the citizens to be illegitimate, thus undermining collective problem-solving.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrés Scherman & Nicolle Etchegaray & Magdalena Browne & Diego Mazorra & Hernando Rojas, 2022. "WhatsApp, Polarization, and Non-Conventional Political Participation: Chile and Colombia Before the Social Outbursts of 2019," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 77-93.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:77-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/5817
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Homero Gil de Zúñiga & Isabel Inguanzo & Alberto Ardèvol-Abreu, 2022. "Contentious Politics in a Digital World: Studies on Social Activism, Protest, and Polarization," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1-4.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    2. Dickinson, David L., 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias: An Examination of Politics and Religion," IZA Discussion Papers 13241, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Duede, Eamon & Teplitskiy, Misha & Lakhani, Karim & Evans, James, 2024. "Being together in place as a catalyst for scientific advance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    4. Iandoli, Luca & Primario, Simonetta & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2021. "The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Deole, Sumit S. & Huang, Yue, 2020. "Suffering and prejudice: Do negative emotions predict immigration concerns?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 644, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    6. Thomas Fujiwara & Karsten Müller & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "The Effect of Social Media on Elections: Evidence from the United States," NBER Working Papers 28849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Aleardo Zanghellini, 2020. "Philosophical Problems With the Gender-Critical Feminist Argument Against Trans Inclusion," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    8. Ignacio-Jesús Serrano-Contreras & Javier García-Marín & Óscar G. Luengo, 2020. "Measuring Online Political Dialogue: Does Polarization Trigger More Deliberation?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 63-72.
    9. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    10. Sarah Schneider-Strawczynski & Jérôme Valette, 2021. "Media Coverage of Immigration and the Polarization of Attitudes," PSE Working Papers halshs-03322229, HAL.
    11. Kendall L. Bailey & Austin Trantham, 2021. "Racial Politics and the Presidency: Analyzing White House Visits by Professional Sports Teams," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 897-919, March.
    12. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    13. Massoc, Elsa Clara & Lubda, Maximilian, 2022. "Social media, polarization and democracy: A multi-methods analysis of polarized users' interactions on Reddit's r/WallStreetBets," LawFin Working Paper Series 28, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    14. Baumann, Fabian & Sokolov, Igor M. & Tyloo, Melvyn, 2020. "A Laplacian approach to stubborn agents and their role in opinion formation on influence networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 557(C).
    15. Pérez-Martínez, H. & Bauzá Mingueza, F. & Soriano-Paños, D. & Gómez-Gardeñes, J. & Floría, L.M., 2023. "Polarized opinion states in static networks driven by limited information horizons," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    16. Hirofumi Takesue, 2021. "A Noisy Opinion Formation Model with Two Opposing Mass Media," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(4), pages 1-3.
    17. Michele Coscia & Luca Rossi, 2022. "How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    18. Niklas Potrafke & Felix Roesel, 2022. "Online Versus Offline: Which Networks Spur Protests?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9969, CESifo.
    19. Jan Hk{a}z{l}a & Yan Jin & Elchanan Mossel & Govind Ramnarayan, 2019. "A Geometric Model of Opinion Polarization," Papers 1910.05274, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    20. Gil Appel & Lauren Grewal & Rhonda Hadi & Andrew T. Stephen, 2020. "The future of social media in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 79-95, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:77-93. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.