Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Backgrounds

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Echo Chamber and Polarization in Social Media

Part of the book series: Agent-Based Social Systems ((ABSS,volume 17))

  • 369 Accesses

Abstract

As the central topic of this book, it is important to clarify what echo chamber means. One of the definitions is a condition when a person is only surrounded by opinions similar to their own. Consider the case of American politics. If a person comes from an area where the Republican Party constantly wins the local and national election, it is very common for them to have most of their closest people to be Republican Party supporters too. This results in the person to not be exposed with opinions that support Democratic Party.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pentland A (2015) Social physics: how social networks can make us smarter. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sunstein CR (2001) Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  3. Prior M (2007) Post-broadcast democracy: how media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Banda KK, Cluverius J (2018) Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Elect Stud 56:90–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ziegler M (2020) Abortion and the law in America: Roe v. Wade to the present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. McQuail D et al (1977) The influence and effects of mass media. In: Mass communication and society, pp 70–94

    Google Scholar 

  7. Twenge JM, Martin GN, Spitzberg BH (2019) Trends in US Adolescents’ media use, 1976–2016: the rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print. Psychol Pop Media Cult 8(4):329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruns A, Highfield T, Burgess J (2014) The Arab spring and its social media audiences: English and Arabic Twitter users and their networks. In: Cyberactivism on the participatory web. Routledge, Milton Park, pp 96–128

    Google Scholar 

  9. Manikonda L, Beigi G, Kambhampati S, Liu H (2018) #metoo through the lens of social media. In: International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in modeling and simulation. Springer, Berlin, pp 104–110

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burgess J (2015) From ‘broadcast yourself’ to ‘follow your interests’: making over social media. Int J Cult Stud 18(3):281–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mills AJ (2012) Virality in social media: the spin framework. J Public Aff 12(2):162–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xia H, Wang H, Xuan Z (2011) Opinion dynamics: a multidisciplinary review and perspective on future research. Int J Knowl Syst Sci 2(4):72–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zaller JR et al (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DMD, Paterson P (2014) Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine 32(19):2150–2159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Schulz WS, Chaudhuri M, Zhou Y, Dube E, Schuster M, MacDonald NE, Wilson R et al (2015) Measuring vaccine hesitancy: the development of a survey tool. Vaccine 33(34):4165–4175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dubé E, Gagnon D, Nickels E, Jeram S, Schuster M (2014) Mapping vaccine hesitancy—country-specific characteristics of a global phenomenon. Vaccine 32(49):6649–6654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marti M, de Cola M, MacDonald NE, Dumolard L, Duclos P (2017) Assessments of global drivers of vaccine hesitancy in 2014—looking beyond safety concerns. PloS One 12(3):e0172310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen W, Landau S, Sham P, Fombonne E (2004) No evidence for links between autism, MMR and measles virus. Psychol Med 34(3):543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. DeStefano F (2007) Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82(6):756–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Love B, Himelboim I, Holton A, Stewart K (2013) Twitter as a source of vaccination information: content drivers and what they are saying. Am J Infect Control 41(6):568–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Buchanan R, Beckett RD (2014) Assessment of vaccination-related information for consumers available on facebook®. Health Inf Libr J 31(3):227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Burki T (2019) Vaccine misinformation and social media. Lancet Digit Health 1(6):e258–e259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brennen JS, Simon F, Howard PN, Nielsen RK (2020) Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. Visited: 2021-10-01

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson NF, Velasquez N, Restrepo NJ, Leahy R, Gabriel N, El Oud S, Zheng M, Manrique P, Wuchty S, Lupu Y (2020) The online competition between pro-and anti-vaccination views. Nature 582(7811):230–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson SL, Wiysonge C (2020) Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Glob Health 5(10):e004206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Baumgaertner B, Carlisle JE, Justwan F (2018) The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate. PloS One 13(1):e0191728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 20(2):171–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia

    Muhammad Al Atiqi

Authors
  1. Muhammad Al Atiqi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Al Atiqi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Al Atiqi, M. (2023). Conceptual Backgrounds. In: Echo Chamber and Polarization in Social Media. Agent-Based Social Systems, vol 17. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1770-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1770-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-1769-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-1770-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation