Working Paper: NBER ID: w29458
Authors: Rafael Di Tella; Ramiro H. Gálvez; Ernesto Schargrodsky
Abstract: We study how two groups, those inside vs those outside echo chambers, react to a political event when we vary social media status (Twitter). Our treatments mimic two strategies often suggested as a way to limit polarization on social media: they expose people to counter-attitudinal data, and they get people to switch off social media. Our main result is that subjects that started inside echo chambers became more polarized when these two strategies were implemented. The only scenario where they did not become more polarized is when they did not even experience the political event. Interestingly, subjects that were outside echo chambers before our study began experienced no change (or a reduction) in polarization. We also study a group of non-Twitter users in order to have a simple, offline benchmark of the debate’s impact on polarization.
Keywords: social media; polarization; echo chambers; political debate
JEL Codes: D72; L82; L86; O33; P16; Z13
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| social media access (L96) | polarization (C46) |
| echo chambers (Y60) | polarization (C46) |
| deprivation of social media access (Z13) | polarization (C46) |
| exposure to polarized content (C91) | polarization (C46) |
| Twitter-allowed group (C92) | polarization (C46) |
| cortisol levels (I19) | stress experience (I31) |