4.7 Article

Public Discourse and Social Network Echo Chambers Driven by Socio-Cognitive Biases

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW X
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041042

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [11871004, 11922102]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018AAA0101100]
  3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1217336]
  4. NIH Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) Program [1P20GM130454]
  5. Neukom CompX Faculty Grant
  6. Dartmouth Faculty Startup Fund
  7. Walter & Constance Burke Research Initiation Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, social media has become an important platform for political discourse, being a site of both political conversations between voters and political advertisements from campaigns. While their individual influences on public discourse are well documented, the interplay between individual-level cognitive biases, social influence processes, dueling campaign efforts, and social media platforms remains unexamined. We introduce an agent-based model that integrates these dynamics and illustrates how their combination can lead to the formation of echo chambers. We find that the range of political viewpoints that individuals are willing to consider is a key determinant in the formation of polarized networks and the emergence of echo chambers and show that aggressive political campaigns can have counterproductive outcomes by radicalizing supporters and alienating moderates. Our model results demonstrate how certain elements of public discourse and political polarization can he understood as the result of an interactive process of shifting individual opinions, evolving social networks, and political campaigns. We also introduce a dynamic empirical case, retweet networks from the final stage of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, to show how our proposed model can be calibrated with real-world behavior.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available