Political blend: An application designed to bring people together based on political differences

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 120-130

  Doris Down, Abraham ^a   Versee, Husayn ^b   Gilbert, Eric ^b  

^a EBAY INC   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Echo chamber; Matching; Mobile; Politics; Social

Indexed keywords

ECHO CHAMBER; MATCHING; MOBILE; POLITICS; SOCIAL;

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 84882255771     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2482991.2483002     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Adamic, L., and Glance, N. The Political blogosphere and the 2004 election: Divided they blog. In Proc. LinkKDD, ACM Press (2005), 36-43.
2. Baron, R. S.et al. Social corroboration and opinion extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 6 (1996), 537-560.
3. Baum, M., and Groeling, T. New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25 (2008), 345-365.
4. Bishop, B. The big sort. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008.
5. Garrett, R. Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication vol 14, 2 (2009), 265 - 285.
6. Gilbert, E., Bergstorm, T., and Karahalios, K. Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers. In Proc. HICSS 2009, Computer Society Press, 1-10.
7. Hoyt, A. Reagan Part II: An American. The American Experience. WGBH, 1998.
8. Key, V. O. The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966.
9. Kim, D., and Johnson, T., Political blog readers: Predictors of motivation for accessing politicalblogs. Telematics and Informatics, 29 (2012), 99-109.
10. Lee, E. (2007) Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: The role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57 (2007), 385-403.
11. Mackie, D. Identification effects in group polarization. journal of personality, and social psychology 50, 4 (1986), 720-728.
12. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J.M. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (2001), 415-444.
13. Munson, SA, and Resnick, P. Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 457-466.
14. Oldenburg, R. The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Da Capo Press, 1999.
15. Page, S. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press, 2007.
16. Park, S., Kang, S., Chung, S., and Song, J. NewsCude: Delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In Proc. CHI 20'09, ACM Press (2009), 443-452.
17. Pariser, E. Eli Pariser: Beware online filter bubbles http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/eli-pariser-beware-online-filter-bubbles.html.
18. Price, V., and Cappella. J. Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialog project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 1 (2002), 303 -329.
19. Putnam, R. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster, 2000.
20. Rheingold, H. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. MIT Press, 1993.
21. Schachter, S. Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 46, 2 (1952), 190- 207.
22. Sechrist, G. B., and Stangor, C. Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 4 (2001), 645-654.
23. Shultz, G. Turmoil and Triumph: My Years As Secretary of State. Scribner, 1993.
24. Sia, Et Al. Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. INFORMS 13, 1 (2002), 70- 90.
25. Suler, J. The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7, 3 (2004), 321-326.
26. Sunstein, C.Republic.com. Princeton University Press, 2001.
27. Sunstein, C.The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10, 2 (2002), 175-195.
28. Sunstien, C.Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press, 2003.
29. Sunstein, C.Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Pres, 2007.
30. Sunstien, C.Going to extremes: How likeminds unite and divide. NY: Oxford university Press, 2009.
31. Treviranus, J., and Hickema, S.The value of the unpopular: Counteracting the popularity echo-chamber on the Web. In Proc. Science and Technology for HumanityTIC- STH 2009, Computer Society Press (2009), 603 - 608.
32. Turkle, S. Alone Together. Basic Books, 2011.
33. Williams, L.E., and J. A. Bargh.Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science 322, 5901 (2008), 606-607.
34. Wojcieszak, M., and Mutz, D. Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication 59, 1 (2009), 40-56.