This study analyzes survey data obtained from members in neo-Nazi and environmentalist discussion forums. It assesses the links between participation in radical and ideologically homogeneous online groups and two forms of political engagement (Movement Support and Movement Promotion). This study also tests whether perceived political dissimilarity of offline friends and family (core ties) and of more distant interpersonal associates (significant ties) encourages or thwarts political engagement and whether it moderates the influence exerted by online groups. As expected, political engagement among the analyzed respondents increases with online participation, also controlling for extremism, political discussion and news media use. Although dissimilar core ties neither encourage nor discourage political engagement, they moderate the mobilizing influence from neo-Nazi and radical environmentalist online groups. Dissimilar significant ties, in turn, do not directly affect political engagement and do not interact with online participation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. © 2009 International Communication Association.

This study analyzes cross-sectional data obtained from respondents in neo-Nazi online discussion forums and textual data from postings to these forums. It assesses the impact of participation in radical and homogeneous online groups on opinion extremism and probes whether this impact depends on political dissimilarity of strong and weak offline ties. Specifically, does dissimilarity attenuate (as deliberative theorists hope) or rather exacerbate (as research on biased processing predicts) extreme opinions? As expected, extremism increases with increased online participation, likely due to the informational and normative influences operating within online groups. Supporting the deliberative and biased processing models, both like-minded and dissimilar social ties offline exacerbate extremism. Consistent with the biased processing model, dissimilar offline ties exacerbate the effects of online groups. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed. © The Author(s) 2010.

Previous studies predicted European Union attitudes using anti-immigrant attitudes, but without explicitly accounting for attitudes toward different out-groups. We propose that group-specific attitudes independently predict attitudes toward the European Union, but only when the out-group is linked to the European Union issue in question. We additionally argue that realistic or symbolic threat associated with specific out-groups determines whether utilitarian or identity considerations are more important in predicting European Union attitudes. Using a nationally representative Dutch sample (N = 2347), we focus on attitudes toward Polish and Muslim immigrants to predict strengthening of European Union integration and Turkey’s potential accession and find support for our hypotheses. The findings indicate the need to rethink the relationship between out-group perceptions and European Union attitudes.

A narrow information diet may be partly to blame for the growing political divides in the United States, suggesting exposure to dissimilar views as a remedy. These efforts, however, could be counterproductive, exacerbating attitude and affective polarization. Yet findings on whether such boomerang effect exists are mixed and the consequences of dissimilar exposure on other important outcomes remain unexplored. To contribute to this debate, we rely on a preregistered longitudinal experimental design combining participants survey self-reports and their behavioral browsing data, in which one should observe boomerang effects. We incentivized liberals to read political articles on extreme conservative outlets (Breitbart, The American Spectator, and The Blaze) and conservatives to read extreme left-leaning sites (Mother Jones, Democracy Now, and The Nation). We maximize ecological validity by embedding the treatment in a larger project that tracks over time changes in online exposure and attitudes. We explored the effects on attitude and affective polarization, as well as on perceptions of the political system, support for democratic principles, and personal well-being. Overall we find little evidence of boomerang effects.

We offer comprehensive evidence of preferences for ideological congruity when people engage with politicians, pundits, and news organizations on social media. Using 4 years of data (2016-2019) from a random sample of 1.5 million Twitter users, we examine three behaviors studied separately to date: (i) following of in-group versus out-group elites, (ii) sharing in-group versus out-group information (retweeting), and (iii) commenting on the shared information (quote tweeting). We find that the majority of users (60%) do not follow any political elites. Those who do follow in-group elite accounts at much higher rates than out-group accounts (90 versus 10%), share information from in-group elites 13 times more frequently than from out-group elites, and often add negative comments to the shared out-group information. Conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to share in-group versus out-group content. These patterns are robust, emerge across issues and political elites, and exist regardless of users' ideological extremity.

Although there has been much speculation regarding the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face versus online deliberative settings, no studies have systematically compared the two. Drawing on a national sample of Americans who reported deliberating face-to-face and/or online, we examine these two deliberative settings with regard to the participants, the motivations, the process, and the effects. Our findings, although tentative, suggest that the two settings are distinct in several important ways. Relative to face-to-face deliberation, online deliberation over-represents young, male, and white users, attracts more ideological moderates, generates more negative emotions, and is less likely to result in consensus and political action. At the same time, online deliberators perceived online settings as more politically and racially diverse. Implications for understanding the democratic potential of different forms of deliberation are discussed. © The Author(s) 2011.

Current interventions to combat misinformation, including fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation, may have unintended consequences for democracy. We propose that these interventions may increase scepticism towards all information, including accurate information. Across three online survey experiments in three diverse countries (the United States, Poland and Hong Kong; total n = 6,127), we tested the negative spillover effects of existing strategies and compared them with three alternative interventions against misinformation. We examined how exposure to fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation affects individuals perception of both factual and false information, as well as their trust in key democratic institutions. Our results show that while all interventions successfully reduce belief in false information, they also negatively impact the credibility of factual information. This highlights the need for further improved strategies that minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of interventions against misinformation.

Affective polarization is a key concern in America and other democracies. Although past evidence suggests some ways to minimize it, there are no easily applicable interventions that have been found to work in the increasingly polarized climate. This project examines whether irrelevant factors, or incidental happiness more specifically, have the power to reduce affective polarization (i.e., misattribution of affect or "carryover effect"). On the flip side, happiness can minimize systematic processing, thus enhancing beliefs in conspiracy theories and impeding individual ability to recognize deep fakes. Three preregistered survey experiments in the US, Poland, and the Netherlands (total N = 3611) induced happiness in three distinct ways. Happiness had no effects on affective polarization toward political outgroups and hostility toward various divisive social groups, and also on endorsement of conspiracy theories and beliefs that a deep fake was real. Two additional studies in the US and Poland (total N = 2220), also induced anger and anxiety, confirming that all these incidental emotions had null effects. These findings, which emerged uniformly in three different countries, among different partisan and ideological groups, and for those for whom the inductions were differently effective, underscore the stability of outgroup attitudes in contemporary America and other countries.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-021-09701-1.

Algorithms of social media platforms are often criticized for recommending ideologically congenial and radical content to their users. Despite these concerns, evidence on such filter bubbles and rabbit holes of radicalization is inconclusive. We conduct an audit of the platform using 100,000 sock puppets that allow us to systematically and at scale isolate the influence of the algorithm in recommendations. We test 1) whether recommended videos are congenial with regard to users ideology, especially deeper in the watch trail and whether 2) recommendations deeper in the trail become progressively more extreme and come from problematic channels. We find that YouTubes algorithm recommends congenial content to its partisan users, although some moderate and cross-cutting exposure is possible and that congenial recommendations increase deeper in the trail for right-leaning users. We do not find meaningful increases in ideological extremity of recommendations deeper in the trail, yet we show that a growing proportion of recommendations comes from channels categorized as problematic (e.g., IDW, Alt-right, Conspiracy, and QAnon), with this increase being most pronounced among the very-right users. Although the proportion of these problematic recommendations is low (max of 2.5%), they are still encountered by over 36.1% of users and up to 40% in the case of very-right users.

Polarization, misinformation, declining trust, and wavering support for democratic norms are pressing threats to the US Exposure to verified and balanced news may make citizens more resilient to these threats. This project examines how to enhance users exposure to and engagement with verified and ideologically balanced news in an ecologically valid setting. We rely on a 2-week long field experiment on 28,457 Twitter users. We created 28 bots utilizing GPT-2 that replied to users tweeting about sports, entertainment, or lifestyle with a contextual reply containing a URL to the topic-relevant section of a verified and ideologically balanced news organization and an encouragement to follow its Twitter account. To test differential effects by gender of the bots, the treated users were randomly assigned to receive responses by bots presented as female or male. We examine whether our intervention enhances the following of news media organizations, sharing and liking of news content (determined by our extensive list of news media outlets), tweeting about politics, and liking of political content (determined using our fine-tuned RoBERTa NLP transformer-based model). Although the treated users followed more news accounts and the users in the female bot treatment liked more news content than the control, these results were small in magnitude and confined to the already politically interested users, as indicated by their pretreatment tweeting about politics. In addition, the effects on liking and posting political content were uniformly null. These findings have implications for social media and news organizations and offer directions for pro-social computational interventions on platforms.