Suchergebnisse

AbstractSocial networking sites are suspected to impede the communication between members of different political camps and thereby increase network homogeneity. This homogeneity can be a result of humans' tendency to process information in confirmatory ways—a characteristic which is also ascribed to populist citizens and those who hold conspiratorial beliefs. It is hypothesized that populist views and conspiratorial beliefs are associated with higher exposure to like-minded information within Facebook. An online survey with German Facebook users (N = 469) revealed that populist attitudes are positively associated with conspiratorial beliefs but negatively associated with homogeneity. Conspiratorial beliefs are unrelated to homogeneity. Findings are discussed in the light of extant research.

The growing significance of social networking sites (SNSs) as venues for political exchanges between citizens raises questions on the consequences of their use. This pre-registered experiment ( N = 704) aexamined to what extent a gradual variation of congruence between users' opinions and the opinion climate they encounter on SNSs affect their strength of opinion and selective exposure. No effects were found from the level of congruence on selective exposure, while exploratory analyses suggested that exposure to overly congruent opinion climates can lead to marginally stronger opinions. Building on research into political social identities which suggests polarizing effects of the latter, interaction effects of users' ideological identities and exposure to opinions on SNS were additionally investigated. However, the present work found no indication that effects of congruence are modulated by identity salience. Taken together, findings of this study suggest that socially divisive effects of like-minded or non-like-minded opinion climates conveyed by SNS may be limited.

Abstract
To date, the role of user behavior in the formation of politically homogeneous online environments (oftentimes called echo chambers) is not fully understood. Building on selective exposure research, we introduce the notion of selective political friending, that is, the preference for political like-mindedness in social affiliations on social networking sites. In a pre-registered laboratory experiment with users of social networking sites in Germany (N = 199), we find that users preferably build connections with those who share their opinions toward controversial political issues. Political like-mindedness outperforms other friending criteria such as popularity or career-related fit with another user. Political friending is pronounced when individuals' pre-existing opinions are strong. The present study points to the necessity to take the motivational complexity into account when studying phenomena linked to political homogeneity on SNS.

Research has documented that social media allow individuals to encounter political disagreement, potentially fostering deliberation in democratic systems. Another strand of studies has indicated that individuals tend to actively homogenize their network by removing (unfriending) political dissenters. To shed light on the psychological connection between encountering political disagreement online and acting in response, this study presents results from in-depth interviews with 20 German Facebook users. In line with cognitive dissonance theory, we found that users engage in different intrapsychic and behavioral strategies to reduce the dissonance provoked by political disagreements, such as mentally discrediting the source or legitimizing the existence of alternative viewpoints. Decisions about drastic measures, such as unfriending the source, are conditional on whether individuals perceive the disagreements as relatively severe or the relationship to the dissenter as relatively close. These findings inform literature on cross-cutting exposure and the political homogenization of online networks.