IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v620y2023i7972d10.1038_s41586-023-06297-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing

Author

Listed:
  • Brendan Nyhan

    (Dartmouth College)

  • Jaime Settle

    (William and Mary)

  • Emily Thorson

    (Syracuse University)

  • Magdalena Wojcieszak

    (University of California
    University of Amsterdam)

  • Pablo Barberá

    (Meta)

  • Annie Y. Chen

    (CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance)

  • Hunt Allcott

    (Stanford University)

  • Taylor Brown

    (Meta)

  • Adriana Crespo-Tenorio

    (Meta)

  • Drew Dimmery

    (Meta
    University of Vienna)

  • Deen Freelon

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Matthew Gentzkow

    (Stanford University)

  • Sandra González-Bailón

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Andrew M. Guess

    (Princeton University
    Princeton University)

  • Edward Kennedy

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

  • Young Mie Kim

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

  • David Lazer

    (Northeastern University)

  • Neil Malhotra

    (Stanford University)

  • Devra Moehler

    (Meta)

  • Jennifer Pan

    (Stanford University)

  • Daniel Robert Thomas

    (Meta)

  • Rebekah Tromble

    (The George Washington University
    The George Washington University)

  • Carlos Velasco Rivera

    (Meta)

  • Arjun Wilkins

    (Meta)

  • Beixian Xiong

    (Meta)

  • Chad Kiewiet Jonge

    (Meta)

  • Annie Franco

    (Meta)

  • Winter Mason

    (Meta)

  • Natalie Jomini Stroud

    (University of Texas at Austin
    University of Texas at Austin)

  • Joshua A. Tucker

    (New York University
    New York University)

Abstract

Many critics raise concerns about the prevalence of ‘echo chambers’ on social media and their potential role in increasing political polarization. However, the lack of available data and the challenges of conducting large-scale field experiments have made it difficult to assess the scope of the problem1,2. Here we present data from 2020 for the entire population of active adult Facebook users in the USA showing that content from ‘like-minded’ sources constitutes the majority of what people see on the platform, although political information and news represent only a small fraction of these exposures. To evaluate a potential response to concerns about the effects of echo chambers, we conducted a multi-wave field experiment on Facebook among 23,377 users for whom we reduced exposure to content from like-minded sources during the 2020 US presidential election by about one-third. We found that the intervention increased their exposure to content from cross-cutting sources and decreased exposure to uncivil language, but had no measurable effects on eight preregistered attitudinal measures such as affective polarization, ideological extremity, candidate evaluations and belief in false claims. These precisely estimated results suggest that although exposure to content from like-minded sources on social media is common, reducing its prevalence during the 2020 US presidential election did not correspondingly reduce polarization in beliefs or attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Brendan Nyhan & Jaime Settle & Emily Thorson & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Pablo Barberá & Annie Y. Chen & Hunt Allcott & Taylor Brown & Adriana Crespo-Tenorio & Drew Dimmery & Deen Freelon & Matthew Gentz, 2023. "Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing," Nature, Nature, vol. 620(7972), pages 137-144, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:620:y:2023:i:7972:d:10.1038_s41586-023-06297-w
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06297-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marius Dragomir & José Rúas-Araújo & Minna Horowitz, 2024. "Beyond online disinformation: assessing national information resilience in four European countries," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Bayer, Judit, 2024. "The place of content ranking algorithms on the AI risk spectrum," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:nature:v:620:y:2023:i:7972:d:10.1038_s41586-023-06297-w. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.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.