The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks

Political Psychology

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 551-569

  Boutyline, Andrei ^a   Willer, Robb ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ideology; motivated cognition; political homophily; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965157886     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/pops.12337     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Ackland, R., & Shorish, J. (2009). Network formation in the political blogosphere: An application of agent based simulation and e-research tools. Computational Economics, 34(4), 383–398.
2. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link discovery, LinkKDD '05 (pp. 36–43).
3. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Oxford, United Kingdom: Harpers.
4. Arendt, H. (1961). Between past and future eight exercises in political thought. Rev. ed. 1968. New York, NY: Viking Press.
5. Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review, 104(03), 519–542.
6. Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91.
7. Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
8. Bond, R. M., et al. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–98.
9. Butler, D. M. (2009). The effect of the size of voting blocs on incumbents' roll-call voting and the asymmetric polarization of Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 297–318.
10. Butts, C. (2003). Predictability of large-scale spatially embedded networks. In R. Breiger, K. Carley, & P. Pattison (Eds.), Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: Workshop summary and papers (pp. 313–323). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
11. Campbell, D. (2013). Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 33–48.
12. Carrol, R., et al. (2011). DW-NOMINATE scores with bootstrapped standard errors. Retrieved from http://www.voteview.com/dwnomin.htm
13. Centola, D. (2013). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194.
14. Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702–34.
15. CQ Press. (2010). CQ press voting and elections collection. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/elections/advsearch/election-results.php
16. DiGrazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J., & Rojas, F. (2013). More tweets, more votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLoS ONE, 8(11):e79449.
17. DiPrete, T., Gelman, A., McCormick, T., Teitler, J., & Zheng, T. (2011). Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1234–1283.
18. Dunbar, R. I. M., Arnaboldi, V., Conti, M., & Passarella, A. 2015. The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline world. Social Networks, 43, 39–47.
19. Enns, P., & Koch, J. (2013). Public opinion in the U.S. states 1956 to 2010. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 13(3), 349–372.
20. Eveland, W., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224.
21. Feld, S. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47(6), 797–801.
22. Fiorina, M., & Abrams, S. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 563–588.
23. General Social Survey (GSS). (2006). [machine-readable data file]. Principal Investigator: T. W. Smith. Co-Principal Investigators: P. V. Marsden & M. Hout, Michael. Sponsored by National Science Foundation. National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, IL.
24. Gerber, A., Huber, G., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874.
25. Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 611–621.
26. Golbeck, J., & Hansen, D. (2014). A method for computing political preference among Twitter followers. Social Networks, 36, 177–184.
27. González-Bailón, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y. (2011). The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Scientific Reports, 1, 1–7.
28. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
29. Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation—The left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al.(2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382.
30. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.
31. GuideStar. (2015). Nonprofit reports and forms 990 for donors, grantmakers, & businesses. Retrieved from http://www.guidestar.org/
32. Gupta, P. (2013). WTF: The who to follow service at Twitter. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (Pp. 505–514).
33. Hatemi, P., McDermott, R., Eaves, L., Kendler, K., & Neale, M. (2013). Fear as a disposition and an emotional state: A genetic and environmental approach to out-group political preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 279–293.
34. Hemphill, L., Otterbacher, J., & Shapiro, M. (2013). What's Congress doing on twitter? In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW '13 (pp. 877–886). New York, NY: ACM.
35. Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
36. Hogg, M. (2004). Uncertainty and extremism: Identification with high entitativity groups under conditions of uncertainty. In The psychology of group perception: Perceived Variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 401–408). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
37. Hogg, M. (2007). Uncertainty–identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 69–126
38. Hohman, Z., Hogg, M., & Bligh, M. (2010). Identity and intergroup leadership: Asymmetrical political and national identification in response to uncertainty. Self and Identity, 9(2), 113–128.
39. Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P. A., Dalton, R., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1025–1054.
40. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.
41. Huntington, S. (1957). Conservatism as an ideology. American Political Science Review, 51(2), 454–473.
42. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.
43. Jang, S.-J. (2009). Are diverse political networks always bad for participatory democracy? Indifference, alienation, and political disagreements. American Politics Research, 37(5), 879–898.
44. Jetten, J., Hogg, M., & Mullin, B.-A. (2000). In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(2), 184–198.
45. Jost, J. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–70.
46. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. (2003a). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
47. Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. (2003b). Exceptions that prove the rule—using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 383–393.
48. Jost, J., Federico, C., & Napier, J. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307–337.
49. Kim, H., & Bearman, P. (1997). The structure and dynamics of movement participation. American Sociological Review, 62(1), 70–93.
50. Klofstad, C., Sokhey, A., & McClurg, S. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134.
51. Knoke, D. (1990). Networks of political action: Toward theory construction. Social Forces, 68(4), 1041–1063.
52. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What Is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (Pp. 591–600).
53. Laumann, E. (1969). Friends of urban men: An assessment of accuracy in reporting their socioeconomic attributes, mutual choice, and attitude agreement. Sociometry, 32(1), 54–69.
54. Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3), 248–274.
55. Liu, T.-P., Dai, S.-C., & Wu, C.-L. (2013). Cross-cutting networks and political participation: Lessons of the 2010 city mayoral elections in Taiwan. East Asia, 30(2), 91–104.
56. McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 640–667.
57. McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370–379.
58. Mehrabian, A. (1975). Affiliation as a function of attitude discrepancy with another and arousal-seeking tendency. Journal of Personality, 43(4), 582–592.
59. Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London, United Kingdom: J. W. Parker and Son.
60. Mutz, D. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.
61. Mutz, D. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.
62. Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
63. Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25.
64. Petersen, M. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.
65. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2007). Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
66. Price, V., Cappella, J., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112.
67. Rainie, L. (2010). Internet, broadband and cell phone statistics. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
68. Romero, D., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 695–704).
69. Shah, J., Kruglanski, A., & Thompson, E. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 383–393.
70. Smith, A., & Brenner, J. (2012). Twitter use 2012. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
71. Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2010). 8% of Online Americans use Twitter. Pew Research Center.
72. Stewart, C., III, & Woon, J. (2011). Congressional committee assignments, 103rd to 112th Congresses, 1993–2011.
73. Stroud, N. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366.
74. Sunstein, C. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195.
75. Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A., & Wellman, B. (2012). Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks, 34(1), 73–81.
76. Thompson, S. (2011). Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time. Journal of Financial Economics, 99(1), 1–10.
77. United States Census Bureau. (2000). P2: Urban and rural. 2000 Census. Washington, D.C.
78. United States Census Bureau. (2009). B01003: Total population. 2009 American Community Survey. Washington, D.C.
79. United States Census Bureau. (2009). Table 1155. Household Internet usage by type of Internet connection and state: 675 2009. Current Population Survey. Washington, D.C.
80. Valenzuela, S, Kim, Y., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2012). Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 163–184.
81. Visser, P., & Mirabile, R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 779–795.
82. Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily. ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 583–642.