The depolarizing role of network heterogeneity and diverse political discussion in social media
An analysis of Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp platforms in Ecuador's 2021 elections
Abstract
Situating the analysis in the case of Ecuador's presidential and parliamentary elections in 2021, this research explores the relationship between ideological polarization and two aspects of social media use: network heterogeneity and diverse political discussion, considering comparatively Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp platforms. The empirical study was carried out based on a sample of 811 young people living in Quito-Ecuador and a digital data collection process. The analytical strategy consisted of formulating multiple regression models for each platform. Considering the sample analysed, the results indicate that users who perceive predominantly heterogeneous networks, in political terms, register less ideological polarization in the cases of Facebook and WhatsApp. Diverse political discussion produces a depolarizing effect when developed on any of the digital platforms analyzed. Network heterogeneity reduces polarization more strongly than diverse political discussion when using Facebook social network or WhatsApp, while on Twitter the depolarizing effect of diverse conversation increases. This study contributes to the knowledge on depolarizing mechanisms derived from the political use of social media in Latin America.
Keywords
Social media, Political polarization, Network heterogeneity, Diverse political discussion, EcuadorReferences
Abad, A., Aldaz-Peña, R., Dávila-Gordillo, D., & Vallejo-Vera, S. (2022). An Unwelcomed Deja-vu: Ecuadorian Politics in 2021. Revista de Ciencia Política, 42(2), 281-308. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2022005000112
Barberá, P. (2014). How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. En: 2015 APSA Conference, 1-46. http://pablobarbera.com/static/barbera_polarization_APSA.pdf
Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de) polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783
Bravo-Gallardo, C. (2022). Un proceso electoral en medio de dos pandemias: la del COVID-19 y la de la desinformación, ¿qué cambió en el Ecuador?. Más Poder Local, (47), 49-63. https://www.maspoderlocal.com/index.php/mpl/article/view/proceso-electoral-entre-dos-pandemias-ecuador-mpl47
Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of communication, 60(4), 680-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
Butters, R., & Hare, C. (2022). Polarized networks? New evidence on American voters’ political discussion networks. Political Behavior, 44(3), 1079-1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09647-w
Chen, H. T., Ai, M., & Guo, J. (2022a). The effect of cross-cutting exposure on attitude change: examining the mediating role of response behaviors and the moderating role of openness to diversity and social network homogeneity. Asian Journal of Communication, 32(2), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2021.2022173
Chen, H. T., Kim, Y., & Chan, M. (2022b). Just a glance, or more? Pathways from counter-attitudinal incidental exposure to attitude (de) polarization through response behaviors and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83-110. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab046
De la Torre, C. (2013). El tecnopopulismo de Rafael Correa: ¿Es compatible el carisma con la tecnocracia?. Latin American Research Review, 48(1), 24-43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41811586
Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
Dylko, I., Dolgov, I., Hoffman, W., Eckhart, N., Molina, M., & Aaziz, O. (2018). Impact of customizability technology on political polarization. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1354243
Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836
Freidenberg, F. (2006). Izquierda vs. derecha. Polarización ideológica y competencia en el sistema de partidos ecuatoriano. Política y gobierno, 8(2), 237-278. http://politicaygobierno.cide.edu/index.php/pyg/article/view/282
Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of communication, 59(4), 676-699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human communication research, 40(3), 309-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Cheng, Z. (2021). Origin and evolution of the News Finds Me perception: Review of theory and effects. Profesional de la Información, 30(3), e300321. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.may.21
Gil de Zúñiga, H. & Valenzuela, S. (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384984
Guo, J., & Chen, H. T. (2022). How Does Multi-Platform Social Media Use Lead to Biased News Engagement? Examining the Role of Counter-Attitudinal Incidental Exposure, Cognitive Elaboration, and Network Homogeneity. Social Media+ Society, 8(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221129140
Guo, S., & Hussey, D. L. (2004). Nonprobability sampling in social work research: Dilemmas, consequences, and strategies. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v30n03_01
Handlin, S. (2018). The logic of polarizing populism: State crises and polarization in South America. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218756922
Hmielowski, J. D., Beam, M. A., & Hutchens, M. J. (2016). Structural changes in media and attitude polarization: Examining the contributions of TV news before and after the Telecommunications Act of 1996. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28(2), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edv012
Inguanzo, I. (2010). “Clivajes y polarización ideológica de los legisladores de América Latina. Elites Parlamentarias Latinoamericanas”. Boletín Datos de Opinión, 18(10), 1-6. https://oir.org.es/pela/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/BOLETIN_ANALISIS_18.pdf
Jager, J., Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2017). II. More than just convenient: The scientific merits of homogeneous convenience samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(2), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12296
Jeong, M., Zo, H., Lee, C. H., & Ceran, Y. (2019). Feeling displeasure from online social media postings: A study using cognitive dissonance theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.021
Klar, S., & Shmargad, Y. (2017). The effect of network structure on preference formation. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 717-721. https://doi.org/10.1086/689972
Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C., & Yarchi, M. (2020). Interpretative polarization across platforms: How political disagreement develops over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Social Media+ Society, 6(3), 1-13. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305120944393
Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
Lee, F. E. (2015). How party polarization affects governance. Annual review of political science, 18, 261-282. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113747
Lee, J., & Choi, Y. (2020). Effects of network heterogeneity on social media on opinion polarization among South Koreans: Focusing on fear and political orientation. International Communication Gazette, 82(2), 119-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518820499
Lee, J, K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of communication, 64(4), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077
Lin, H., Tov, W., & Qiu, L. (2014). Emotional disclosure on social networking sites: The role of network structure and psychological needs. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 342-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.045
López-Fierro, S., & Pacheco-Villamar, R. (2021). Cuantificando opiniones expresadas en tweets durante las Elecciones Presidenciales Ecuatorianas del 2021 por medio del Análisis de Sentimiento. Ecuadorian Science Journal, 5(3), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.46480/esj.5.3.156
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Min, S. J., & Wohn, D. Y. (2020). Underneath the filter bubble: The role of weak ties and network cultural diversity in cross-cutting exposure to disagreements on social media. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 9(1), 22-38. https://www.thejsms.org/index.php/JSMS/article/view/447
Moncagatta, P., Moscoso-Moreno, A., Pachano, S., Montalvo, J. D., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2020). Cultura política de la democracia en Ecuador y en las Américas, 2018/19. Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID).
Moncagatta, P., & Poveda, A. E. (2021). La creciente polarización ideológica en Ecuador bajo el Gobierno de Rafael Correa. Estado & comunes, revista de políticas y problemas públicos, 1(12), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.37228/estado_comunes.v1.n12.2021.210
Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
Pingree, R. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication theory, 17(4), 439-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?”. Political communication, 19(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506
Quatember, A. (2019). Inferences based on Probability Sampling or Nonprobability Sampling: Are They Nothing but a Question of Models? Survey Methods: Insights from the Field, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2019-00004
Semaan, B. C., Robertson, S. P., Douglas, S., & Maruyama, M. (2014). Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: Towards Depolarization. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ’14, 1409–1421. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531605
Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments. Science advances, 8(25), eabn5515. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn5515
Valenzuela, S., Bachmann, I., & Bargsted, M. (2019). The Personal Is the Political? What Do WhatsApp Users Share and How It Matters for News Knowledge, Polarization and Participation in Chile. Digital Journalism, 9, 155-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1693904
Valeriani, A., & Vaccari, C. (2018). Political talk on mobile instant messaging services: A comparative analysis of Germany, Italy, and the UK. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1715-1731. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1350730
Waterloo, S. F., Baumgartner, S. E., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Norms of online expressions of emotion: Comparing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp. New media & society, 20(5), 1813-1831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817707349
Wojcieszak, M., Winter, S., & Yu, X. (2020). Social norms and selectivity: Effects of norms of open-mindedness on content selection and affective polarization. Mass Communication and Society, 23(4), 455-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1714663
Wolff, J. (2018). Ecuador after Correa: the struggle over the "citizens' revolution". Revista de Ciencia Política, 38(2), 281-302. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2018000200281
Yoo, S. W., & Gil De Zúñiga, H. (2019). The role of heterogeneous political discussion and partisanship on the effects of incidental news exposure online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1561346
Zumárraga-Espinosa, M. (2021). WhatsApp, comunicación móvil y participación política: un estudio cuantitativo en Ecuador. Contratexto, (035), 17-42. https://doi.org/10.26439/contratexto2021.n035.4839
Zumárraga-Espinosa, M., Egas-Balseca, S., & Reyes-Valenzuela, C. (2021). El uso de las plataformas Facebook, Twitter y Whatsapp como medio de participación política online en los procesos electorales Ecuador 2021. Sociología Y Política HOY, (5), 135–146. https://revistadigital.uce.edu.ec/index.php/hoy/article/view/3254
Published
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2024 Marcos Zumárraga-Espinosa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
