- 24/04/2024
- Category: Commentaries
Author: Syadrina Rachma Paramita
Editor: M Perdana Karim
It can be frustrating to encounter something so different from us. Issues like food or movie preferences may still be tolerable: some don’t mix your porridge before eating, some don’t like musicals. Understandable. But when it comes to politics—the very thing that determines our collective welfare in the coming years—seeing differences in this area can be stressful. How can they not understand these facts? What is so difficult to comprehend? If I can grasp it, why can’t they? We might not help but think that others also know the things we know.
During these past few months, when we were busy trying out democracy, frustrations revolving around stark differences in each candidate’s supporters have emerged. So when a question that comes from a place of concern and irritation, such as ‘As a user of platform A, how can the battleground be so different on platform B?‘ arises, what could be the answer to this? What could explain the significant difference between supporters of one group and another, especially when we observe the use of different social media platforms?
We sometimes get too comfortable navigating the online world—a world that feels almost like one’s own room: we spend hours there. We can “do nothing” and just enjoy the stuff present in that space. We tend to decorate it with things that we like, fill it up with things we need—things that are useful for our personal interests and daily necessities. These things, in the digital world, take the form of information. We feel increasingly understood by the machine in the palm of our hands, for that it provides the tailored, ready-to-consume contents that are well-aligned with our identities and designed for our convenience, thanks to the Big Data era.
Customization allows us to adjust our feed, personalization results in curated materials, and individualization leads us to unique digital experiences. Our attention is directed towards things that bring comfort to us, ultimately resulting in profits for big corporations, considering the concept of ‘attention economy’ that positions our attention as a resource and commodity (Hyland, 2023). So comfortable are we in this space that we become lulled in this room made just for us. But we can’t stay in comfort forever. This might be the moment we realize that the room we occupy has a name, and perhaps it is time for us to step out of our room of comfort— or what they call an echo chamber.
To Wander around the Echo Chamber:
Echo chambers are situations where people ‘hear their own voice’ (Boutyline & Willer, 2017; Flaxman et al., 2016). . It is where users consume content and engage in discourse that predominantly supports the same point of view that users hold and believe themselves (Boutyline & Willer, 2017; Flaxman et al., 2016). In principle, it could pertain to any topic and amplify various messages—ambiguous, benign, or malign; widely accepted or controversial; evidence-based or demonstrably false; and anything in between (Arguedas et al., 2022). In practice, social scientists have mainly focused on one type of echo chamber: politically partisan news echo chambers, where individuals exclusively receive news and information from sources aligned with one side of the political spectrum (Arguedas et al., 2022). This was widely found in the last election, which is why the election is an ideal context to examine the issue of echo chambers further because this phenomenon is closely related to opinions and individual or group differences, especially concerning someone’s political involvement or affiliation.
An echo chamber can also be described as a group in which users’ opinions, political leanings, or beliefs about a topic are reinforced by repeated interactions with peers with similar tendencies and attitudes, and they tend to gravitate toward information that supports their beliefs and join in around a joint discussion(Garimella et al., 2018; Del Vicario et al., 2016; Cota et al., 2019). This, in turn, may foster the adoption of more extreme opinions (Festinger, 1964; Hart et al., 2009, as cited in Kitchens, Johnson, & Gray, 2020), posing one of the most detrimental consequences of echo chambers. Other impacts of echo chambers includes the exclusion of alternative perspectives (Gillespie et al., 2014), a lack of common ground (Layman et al., 2006) and political and social gridlock in various contexts (Hutchens et al., 2021; Kim & Kim, 2019).
Two concepts can explain the echo chamber. The first is the selective exposure theory, which posits that individuals favor news sources that reinforce their opinions rather than challenge them (Frey, 1986, as cited in Garrett, 2009). Another definition of selective exposure, considered a distinctive feature of political echo chambers, is a social phenomenon where users consume information that aligns only with what they want to believe (Gao et al., 2023). Social media users exhibit a propensity to consume media content that caters to their preferences if given a choice to do so (Vaccari, 2016), facilitated by the personalization technology sensitive to personal preferences; once a user interacts with opinion-reinforcing content, algorithmic filtering may hinder further exposure to a narrower, more closely aligned range of content (Pariser, 2011; Stroud, 2010, as cited in Kitchens, Johnson, & Gray, 2020).
The second is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to interpret, search for, recall, and favor the information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, resulting in polarized views about an issue or event (Westerwick et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2021). Confirmation bias occurs when users encounter information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs and attitudes (Bessi, 2016; Geschke et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2020 as cited in Modgil et al., 2024) which is exactly one of the definitions of echo chamber. Echo chambers are formed because individuals tend to experience confirmation bias. Conversely, confirmation bias has increasing potential to be strengthened due to the existence of echo chambers that makes it easier for us to find information that validates our preconceptions because the data is readily available and conveniently echoes our sentiments.
Though sometimes used synonymously in broad and various ways, it is worth noting that echo chamber is distinct from the term filter bubble as the difference between those two is significant. Filter bubbles refer to forms of intellectual isolation exclusively generated by algorithms, whose inferences are based on users’ choices. In contrast, echo chambers are enacted by users themselves. They can exist in offline settings, but according to Sunstein (2001), they are widened in online ones, where users would interact only with people who share their same beliefs and values and exclude diverse perspectives (also thanks to algorithmic intercession).
Secondly, the two notions operate on different levels of abstraction: Pariser’s filter bubble concerns the individual user’s perspective on online information consumption and exposure, whereas Sunstein’s echo chamber pertains to interactions within an (online) community. Therefore, it is crucial for us as individuals to be aware of when we have delved too deeply into an echo chamber, such as continuously discussing our favorite political candidates even to the extent irrelevant aspects dominate the conversation (for instance, which candidate is more attractive or charismatic, or which one has a more likeable personality). When we realize that like-minded individuals surround us, the next step is to step out of this chamber to seek out alternative viewpoints and practice being open to differing opinions.
On Stepping Out of The Echo Chamber
The first step in breaking out of the echo chamber is realizing that merely engaging, let alone contributing to the conversation, makes us part of constructing the echo chamber itself. As Bruns (2019) suggests, the echo chamber applies to a social network, as it comes into being when some users choose to connect with others, shaping up a group and excluding outsiders. The more connections are created within it, the more isolated this network is from outsiders. Therefore, as it is a social network, one must recognize that many individuals populate the echo chamber ;hence, one needs to be aware of one’s independence: that they are a single player or an actor who can influence and be influenced.
Once one has acquired such awareness, one can make a deliberate effort to get out of that chamber, or one can decide to stay in it, fully aware of its limitations (Marin & Copeland, 2022). However, staying inside is feared to lead to prolonged exposure to confirmation bias. Previous studies have found that users generally tend to search, believe, and share information that conforms to their own beliefs and attitudes but ignore the information that challenges their beliefs and attitudes (Itzchakov & Van Harreveld, 2018; Knobloch-Westerwick & Kleinman, 2012; van Strien, Kammerer et al., 2016 as cited in Modgil et al., 2024). This tendency, if continued, could be detrimental to critical thinking, open-mindedness, and decision-making (Nickerson, 1998; Kahneman, 2011 as cited in Suzuki & Yamamoto, 2021). We might become lazy thinkers, more narrow-minded, and easily swayed by others’ opinions. We might lose our agency in forming independent judgments.
Critical thinking alone is insufficient; critical behavior and engagement are needed as the next steps (Marin & Copeland, 2022). This involves seeking reliable and verifying sources, double-checking information, and consistently questioning assumptions. Authors like Heersmink (2018) and Schwengerer (2021) emphasize the importance of online users being reflective about what they post, share, or how they interpret internet search results. An approach of mindfulness and reliability needs to be developed in avoiding echo chambers (Butler & Gray, 2006; Dernbecher & Beck, 2017; Thatcher et al., 2018 as cited in Modgil et al., 2024), hence it is also essential to differentiate between meaningful engagement and superficial interactions, and to consistently seek for information from credible sources.
References:
Hyland, K. (2023). Academic publishing and the attention economy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 101253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101253
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320.
Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review . Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Gao, Y., Liu, F., & Gao, L. (2023). Echo chamber effects on short video platforms. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6282. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33370-1
Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. MIT Press
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Politics Science, 9, 83–110.
Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D., Beam, M. A., & Romanova, E. (2021). Trust over Use: Examining the Roles of Media Use and Media Trust on Misperceptions in the 2016 US Presidential Election. Mass Communication and Society, 1–24.
Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2019). Incivility on Facebook and political polarization. The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 219–227
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Title of the paper. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (pp. 913–922).
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., … Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 554–559.
Cota, W., Ferreira, S. C., Pastor-Satorras, R., & Starnini, M. (2019). Quantifying echo chamber effects in information spreading over political communication networks. EPJ Data Science, 8, 35. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0213-1
Kitchens, B., Johnson, S. L., & 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), 1619-1649. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/16371
Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
Westerwick, A., Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2017). Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: Source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 343–364
Gupta, M., Parra, C. M., & Dennehy, D. (2021). Questioning racial and gender bias in AI-based recommendations: do espoused national cultural values matter? Information Systems Frontiers, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10156-2.
Sunstein, C. R. (2001.) Echo Chambers: Bush V. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bruns, A. (2019). Are filter bubbles real?. John Wiley & Sons.
Modgil, S., Singh, R. K., Gupta, S., et al. (2024). A confirmation bias view on social media induced polarisation during Covid-19. Information Systems Frontiers, 26(2), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10222-9
Heersmink, R. (2018). A Virtue Epistemology of the Internet: Search Engines, Intellectual Virtues and Education. Social Epistemology, 32(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1383530
Schwengerer, L. (2020). Online Intellectual Virtues and the Extended Mind. Social Epistemology, 1–11.
Marin, L., & Copeland, S. M. (2022). Self-Trust and Critical Thinking Online: A Relational Account. Social Epistemology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2151330
Vaccari, C. et al. Of echo chambers and contrarian clubs: Exposure to political disagreement among German and Italian users of twitter. Soc. Media+ Soc. 2, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664221 (2016)
