SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Middle Black Sea Journal of Communication Studies / 2023 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

A Quantitative Research on Ideological and Political Polarization on Social Media

Sosyal Medyada İdeolojik ve Siyasi Kutuplaşma Üzerine Nicel Bir Araştırma

Çetin Murat Hazar(ANKARA HACI BAYRAM VELI UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF COMMUNICATION)0000-0001-7173-8529
Mahmut Fevzi Cengiz(NECMETTIN ERBAKAN UNIVERSITY, EREĞLİ FORENSIC VOCATIONAL SCHOOL)0000-0001-7398-3392
Özkan Avcı(BARTIN UNIVERSITY, BARTIN VOCATIONAL SCHOOL)0000-0003-1524-1379
Pages
121–144
Publication Date
2023-11-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of the research, it has been revealed that the majority of the participants do not follow users with different ideological and political views on social media and do not interact with these users.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Internet has provided users with an environment where they can easily access unlimited data and information regardless of place and time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, 770 participants were determined by a simple random sampling method and the survey questions were delivered to the participants via online tools.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the research, it has been revealed that the majority of the participants do not follow users with different ideological and political views on social media and do not interact with these users.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Medya · Kutuplaşma · Yankı Odaları

Abstract

The Internet has provided users with an environment where they can easily access unlimited data and information regardless of place and time. However, especially with the spread of social media channels, algorithmic filtering factors and the tendency of users to interact with other users with similar characteristics have narrowed the limit of the content consumed by a user. This leads to a vicious cycle in which users on social media only consume content that has similar characteristics to their own beliefs and opinions. This study examines the effects of users’ social media usage practices on ideological and political polarization in social media channels, regardless of the filtering factors of algorithms. In the study, 770 participants were determined by a simple random sampling method and the survey questions were delivered to the participants via online tools. According to the results of the research, it has been revealed that the majority of the participants do not follow users with different ideological and political views on social media and do not interact with these users. In addition, it was observed that the majority of the participants do not follow journalists and political leaders with opposing ideological and political views and do not interact with their posts. As a result, users, who are presented with content similar to their own ideological and political thoughts with the effect of filter bubbles, are also consciously blocking different opinions and voluntarily imprisoning themselves in echo chambers.

Özet

İnternet kullanıcılara yer ve zamandan bağımsız olarak sınırsız veriye ve enformasyona kolayca erişebilecekleri bir ortam sağlamıştır. Ancak özellikle sosyal medya mecralarının yaygınlaşması ile algoritmik filtreleme faktörleri ve kullanıcıların kendine benzer özelliklerde olan kullanıcılarla etkileşimde bulunma durumu bir kullanıcının tükettiği içeriğin genişliğini daraltmıştır. Bu durum sosyal medyadaki kullanıcıların yalnızca kendi inanç ve görüşleriyle benzer özelliklerde olan içerikleri tükettiği kısır bir döngüye yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışma, sosyal medya mecralarını oluşturan algoritmaların filtreleme faktörlerinden bağımsız olarak kullanıcıların sosyal medya kullanma pratiklerinin ideolojik ve siyasi kutuplaşma üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Araştırmada basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemiyle 770 katılımcı belirlenmiş ve anket soruları katılımcılara çevrim içi araçlarla ulaştırılmıştır. Araştırma sonucu elde edilen bulgular katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğunun farklı ideolojik ve siyasi görüşe sahip diğer sıradan kullanıcıları takip etmediklerini ve bu kullanıcılarla etkileşimde bulunmadıklarını ortaya koymuştur. Benzer şekilde katılımcıların çoğunluğunun karşıt ideolojik görüşteki gazetecileri ve siyasi liderleri takip etmedikleri ve bu kişilerin sosyal medya paylaşımlarıyla etkileşimde bulunmadıkları bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Sonuç olarak filtre balonlarının etkisiyle kendi ideolojik ve siyasi düşüncesine benzer içerikler sunulan kullanıcılar, bilinçli olarak farklı görüşlerin önüne set çekmekte ve kendilerini gönüllü olarak yankı odalarına hapsetmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Hazar, Ç. M., Cengiz, M. F., Avcı, Ö. (2023). A Quantitative Research on Ideological and Political Polarization on Social Media. Middle Black Sea Journal of Communication Studies, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 121–144. https://doi.org/10.56202/mbsjcs.1320468

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Alatawi, F, Cheng, L., Tahir, A., Karami, M., Jiang, B., Black, T. ve Liu, H. (2021). A Survey on Echo Chambers on Social Media: Description, Detection and Mitigation. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.05084
  2. Arora, S. D., Singh, G. P., Chakraborty, A. ve Maity, M. (2022). Polarization and social media: A systematic review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121942, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121942
  3. Arugute, N., Calvo, E. ve Ventura, T. (2023). Network activated frames: content sharing and perceived polarization in social media. Journal of Communication, 73(1), s.14-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac035
  4. Bechmann, A. ve Nielbo, K. L. (2018). Are we exposed to the same “news” in the news feed?. Digital Journalism, 6(8), s.990-1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1510741
  5. Belcastro, L., Cantini, R., Marozzo, F., Talia, D. ve Trunfio, P. (2020). Learning political polarization on social media using neural networks. IEEE Access, 8, 47177-47187. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2978950
  6. Borgesius, F. J. Z., Trilling, D., Moller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H. ve Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles?. Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, 5(1), s.1-16. https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.401
  7. Bozdag, C. (2020). Managing diverse online networks in the context of polarization: Understanding how we grow apart on and through social media. Social Media+ Society, 6(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120975713
  8. Cantini, R., Marozzo, F., Talia, D. ve Tunfio P. (2022). Analyzing Political Polarization on Social Media by Deleting Bot Spamming. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6010003
  9. Cardenal, A. S., Aguilar-Paredes, C., Cristancho, C. ve Majó-Vázquez, S. (2019). Echo-chambers in online news consumption: Evidence from survey and navigation data in Spain. European Journal of Communication, 34(4), s.360-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119844409
  10. Cengiz, M. F. ve Patan, İ. (2021). Haberde Gerçeklik: Sosyal Medyada Gerçeklik Algısı Üzerine Bir Analiz. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), s.235–259.
  11. Chitra, U. ve Musco, C. (2020, January). Analyzing the impact of filter bubbles on social network polarization. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, s.115-123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3336191.3371825
  12. Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W. ve Starnini, M. (2020). Echo chambers on social media: A comparative analysis. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.09603
  13. Coşkun, O. (2022). Arama motorlarında öneri algoritması ve filtre balonu etkisi: ‘Google Haberler’ sekmesi örneği. Etkileşim, 10, s.208-234. https://doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2022.5.10.176
  14. Dahlgren, P. M. (2021). A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure. Nordicom Review, 42(1), s.15–33. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0002
  15. DiFranzo, D. ve Gloria-Garcia, K. (2017). Filter bubbles and fake news. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 23(3), s.32-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055153
  16. Flaxman, S., Goel, S. ve Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), s.298-320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
  17. Garimella, K. (2018). Polarization on Social Media. Finland: Aalto University Doctoral Dissertations Publication Series.
  18. Geschke, D., Lorenz, J. ve Holtz, P. (2019). The triple‐filter bubble: Using agent‐based modelling to test a metatheoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), s.129-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12286
  19. Hong, S. ve Kim, S. H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), s.777-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007
  20. Hülür, H. ve Bayır, M. (2021). Doğruluk-Sonrası çağın bir boyutu olarak yankı odası. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management Inquiries, 5(9), s.245-254.
  21. Kaiser, J., Vaccari, C. ve Chadwick, A. (2022). Partisan Blocking: Biased Responses to Shared Misinformation Contribute to Network Polarization on Social Media. Journal of Communication, 72(2), s.214-240. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac002
  22. Kitchens, B., Johnson, S. L. ve Gray, P. (2020). Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), s.1619-1649. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/16371
  23. Kozitsin, I. V. ve Chkhartishvili, A. G. (2020, September). Users’ Activity in Online Social Networks and the Formation of Echo Chambers. In 2020 13th International Conference “Management of large-scale system development (MLSD)”, IEEE Access, s.1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/MLSD49919.2020.9247720 Lev-On, A. (2022). Polarization of Deliberative and Participatory Activists on Social Media. Media and Communication, 10(4), s.56-65. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i4.5637
  24. Narin, B. (2018). Kişiselleştirilmiş çevrimiçi haber akışının yankı odası etkisi, filtre balonu ve siberbalkanizasyon kavramları çerçevesinde incelenmesi. Selçuk İletişim, 11(2), s.232-251. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.340471
  25. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri, Nitel ve Nicel Yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Desen Ofset.
  26. Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), s.141-161. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32
  27. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You. New York: The Penguin Press.
  28. Pew Research Center (2021). Social Media Use in 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact sheet/social- media/, Erişim Tarihi: 22.02.2023.
  29. Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A. ve Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Echo Chambers on Facebook. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110
  30. Reuters Institute Digital News Report (2018). Proportion Who Say They Were Exposed to Completely Made-Up News in The Last Week, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/digital-news-report-2018.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 21.02.2023.
  31. Reuters Institute Digital News Report (2022). Turkey. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ 2022-06/Digital_News-Report_2022.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 21.02.2023.
  32. Scruggs, J. F. (1998). The “Echo Chamber” approach to advocacy. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ggxn0061, Erişim Tarihi: 25.03.2023.
  33. Sekaran, U. (2000). Resarch methods for business: A skill-building approach. UK: Wiley&Sons
  34. Sun, R., Zhu, H. ve Guo, F. (2023). Impact of content ideology on social media opinion polarization: The moderating role of functional affordances and symbolic expressions. Decision Support Systems, 164, 113845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113845
  35. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
  36. TUİK (2022). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Hanehalkı Bilişim Teknolojileri (BT) Kullanım Araştırması, 2022. https:// data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2022-45587, Erişim Tarihi: 25.03.2023.
  37. Tutkun Ünal, A. ve Deniz, L. (2020). Sosyal Medya Kuşaklarının Sosyal Medya Kullanım Seviyeleri ve Tercihleri. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches. 15(22), s.1289-1319. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.626283
  38. Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C. ve Sternisko, A. (2021). How social media shapes polarization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(11), s.913-916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013
  39. Wakefield, R. L. ve Wakefield, K. (2022). The antecedents and consequences of intergroup affective polarisation on social media. Information Systems Journal, s.1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12419
  40. Warner, B. R., Horstman, H. K. ve Kearney, C. C. (2020). Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(4), s.459-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1789195
  41. We Are Social (2022). Digital 2022 Global Overview Report. https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2022/01/digital- 2022-another-year-of-bumper-growth-2/, Erişim Tarihi: 20.02.2023.
  42. Wolfowicz, M., Weisburd, D. ve Hasisi, B. (2021). Examining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19, s.119-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09471-0
  43. Yarchi, M., Baden, C. ve Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021) Political Polarization on the Digital Sphere: A Cross-platform, Over-time Analysis of Interactional, Positional, and Affective Polarization on Social Media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), s.98-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067