IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fauebm/102018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Selektion und Bias in traditionellen und Internet-Informationsintermediären: Forschungsstand

Author

Listed:
  • Leyrer, Katharina

Abstract

The selection of information on the internet is causing massive concerns and discussion. Critics fear the polarization of internet users and warn of echo chambers and filter bubbles. Especially search engines and social networking sites are being held responsible: as information intermediaries they are positioned between content producers and recipients, selecting and rating content. However, empirical findings on selection and bias in internet information intermediaries are scarce and disparate. Moreover, the preselection of information by intermediaries is not a specific characteristic of the digital world, but is equally done by traditional intermediaries such as mass media, bookshops or libraries. This paper summarizes the current state of research on selection and bias in traditional and internet information intermediaries. Different concepts, definitions and implications of the term information intermediary are analyzed in the context of the adjacent term gatekeeper. Furthermore, empirical findings on the theories of filter bubbles, echo chambers and fragmentation are summed up, as well as the state of knowledge on selection in different types of intermediaries. As a basis for further research, two models for analyzing selection and bias in intermediaries are introduced: Bozdag's Filter Model and Jürgens & Stark's Intermediary Effects Model. Lastly, aspects that distinguish selection in internet information intermediaries from selection in traditional contexts are compiled. This paper concludes that the production or reinforcement of bias and fragmentation by internet intermediaries is not sufficiently proven. Moreover, there is a research gap on whether traditional intermediaries have comparable effects. Further research requires a comprehensive analysis on the selection mechanisms in both traditional and internet information intermediaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Leyrer, Katharina, 2018. "Selektion und Bias in traditionellen und Internet-Informationsintermediären: Forschungsstand," Erlangen Contributions to Media Management and Media Economics 10/2018, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), Institute for the Study of the Book, Professorship of E-Publishing and Digital Markets.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fauebm:102018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/223338/1/EBM-2018-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Frederik J. & Trilling, Damian & Möller, Judith & Bodó, Balázs & de Vreese, Claes H. & Helberger, Natali, 2016. "Should we worry about filter bubbles?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16.
    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. Guohui Song & Yongbin Wang, 2021. "Mainstream Value Information Push Strategy on Chinese Aggregation News Platform: Evolution, Modelling and Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Herzog, Bodo, 2019. "Optimal policy under uncertainty and rational inattention," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 444-449.
    4. Thomas E. Powell & Toni G. L. A. van der Meer & Carlos Brenes Peralta, 2019. "Picture Power? The Contribution of Visuals and Text to Partisan Selective Exposure," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 12-31.
    5. Kris Hartley & Minh Khuong Vu, 2020. "Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: policy insights from an equilibrium model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 735-758, December.
    6. König Pascal D., 2020. "Why Digital-Era Political Marketing is Not the Death Knell for Democracy: On the Importance of Placing Political Microtargeting in the Context of Party Competition," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 87-110, June.
    7. Pelletier, Mark J. & Horky, Alisha Blakeney & Fox, Alexa K., 2021. "Fexit: The effect of political and promotional communication from friends and family on Facebook exiting intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 321-334.
    8. Anna Gerbrandy, 2019. "Rethinking Competition Law within the European Economic Constitution," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 127-142, January.
    9. Irion, Kristina & Helberger, Natali, 2017. "Smart TV and the online media sector: User privacy in view of changing market realities," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 170-184.
    10. Thiel, Thorsten, 2017. "Digitalisierung als Kontext politischen Handelns. Republikanische Perspektiven auf die digitale Transformation der Gegenwart," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 189-215.
    11. Chulmin Lim & Seongcheol Kim, 2024. "Examining factors influencing the user’s loyalty on algorithmic news recommendation service," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Theodora A. Maniou & Andreas Veglis, 2020. "Employing a Chatbot for News Dissemination during Crisis: Design, Implementation and Evaluation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Budzinski, Oliver & Gänßle, Sophia & Lindstädt-Dreusicke, Nadine, 2021. "Data (r)evolution - The economics of algorithmic search and recommender services," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 148, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    14. Sætra, Henrik Skaug, 2019. "The tyranny of perceived opinion: Freedom and information in the era of big data," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    15. Huw C Davies, 2018. "Redefining Filter Bubbles as (Escapable) Socio-Technical Recursion," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 23(3), pages 637-654, September.
    16. Copland, Simon, 2020. "Reddit quarantined: Can changing platform affordances reduce hateful material online?," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-26.
    17. Sarah Eskens, 2020. "The personal information sphere: An integral approach to privacy and related information and communication rights," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(9), pages 1116-1128, September.
    18. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jeong Hyun & Kim, Changju & Park, Jooyoung, 2023. "Decisions with ChatGPT: Reexamining choice overload in ChatGPT recommendations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Rui Qiao & Cong Liu & Jun Xu, 2024. "Making algorithmic app use a virtuous cycle: Influence of user gratification and fatigue on algorithmic app dependence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Annelien Smets & Jorre Vannieuwenhuyze & Pieter Ballon, 2022. "Serendipity in the city: User evaluations of urban recommender systems," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 19-30, 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:zbw:fauebm:102018. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://buchwissenschaft.phil.fau.de/ .

    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.