IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2412.10524.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is Polarization an Inevitable Outcome of Similarity-Based Content Recommendations? -- Mathematical Proofs and Computational Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Minhyeok Lee

Abstract

The increasing reliance on digital platforms shapes how individuals understand the world, as recommendation systems direct users toward content "similar" to their existing preferences. While this process simplifies information retrieval, there is concern that it may foster insular communities, so-called echo chambers, reinforcing existing viewpoints and limiting exposure to alternatives. To investigate whether such polarization emerges from fundamental principles of recommendation systems, we propose a minimal model that represents users and content as points in a continuous space. Users iteratively move toward the median of locally recommended items, chosen by nearest-neighbor criteria, and we show mathematically that they naturally coalesce into distinct, stable clusters without any explicit ideological bias. Computational simulations confirm these findings and explore how population size, adaptation rates, content production probabilities, and noise levels modulate clustering speed and intensity. Our results suggest that similarity-based retrieval, even in simplified scenarios, drives fragmentation. While we do not claim all systems inevitably cause polarization, we highlight that such retrieval is not neutral. Recognizing the geometric underpinnings of recommendation spaces may inform interventions, policies, and critiques that address unintended cultural and ideological divisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Minhyeok Lee, 2024. "Is Polarization an Inevitable Outcome of Similarity-Based Content Recommendations? -- Mathematical Proofs and Computational Validation," Papers 2412.10524, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2412.10524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.10524
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    2. Minhyeok Lee, 2024. "Does Low Spoilage Under Cold Conditions Foster Cultural Complexity During the Foraging Era? -- A Theoretical and Computational Inquiry," Papers 2412.09335, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Donald R. Davis & Jonathan I. Dingel & Joan Monras & Eduardo Morales, 2019. "How Segregated Is Urban Consumption?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1684-1738.
    4. Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante & Francesco Sobbrio, 2018. "Politics 2.0: The Multifaceted Effect of Broadband Internet on Political Participation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1094-1136.
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2015. "Rich communication, social motivations, and coordinated resistance against divide-and-conquer: A laboratory investigation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 146-159.
    6. Shane Greenstein & Yuan Gu & Feng Zhu, 2016. "Ideological Segregation among Online Collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-028, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2017.
    7. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    9. Caetano, Gregorio & Maheshri, Vikram, 2019. "Gender segregation within neighborhoods," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 253-263.
    10. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    11. Poy, Samuele & Schüller, Simone, 2016. "Internet and Voting in the Web 2.0 Era: Evidence from a Local Broadband Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 9991, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Gordon Anderson & Oliver Linton & Jasmin Thomas, 2017. "Similarity, dissimilarity and exceptionality: generalizing Gini’s transvariation to measure “differentness” in many distributions," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 75(2), pages 161-180, August.
    14. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    15. Alejandra Agustina Martínez, 2023. "Raise your Voice! Activism and Peer Effects in Online Social Networks," Working Papers 277, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    16. Charles Heckscher & John McCarthy, 2014. "Transient Solidarities: Commitment and Collective Action in Post-Industrial Societies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 627-657, December.
    17. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    18. Besley, Timothy & Fetzer, Thiemo & Mueller, Hannes, 2019. "Terror and Tourism: The Economic Consequences of Media Coverage," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 449, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. Manudeep Bhuller & Tarjei Havnes & Edwin Leuven & Magne Mogstad, 2013. "Broadband Internet: An Information Superhighway to Sex Crime?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1237-1266.
    20. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy & Tarun Goyal & Yannick Ouardi & Andreas König, 2022. "The politics of piracy: political ideology and the usage of pirated online media," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 51-63, March.

    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:arx:papers:2412.10524. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.