Political Polarization and Tolerance Among Youth: The Role of Echo Chambers
Keywords:
Echo Chambers, Political Polarization, Political Tolerance, Youth, Confirmation Bias, Intensity of Political Beliefs, Openness to Differing ViewpointsAbstract
Echo chambers are virtual and physical settings that are used to access political information. This reinforces the pre-existing political viewpoints of individuals. Selective media consumption influences political discourse and personalization on digital platforms. These walled informational ecosystems have the potential to exacerbate political polarization by reinforcing prejudices, developing a feeling of ideological uniformity, and limiting exposure to alternative political ideas. Simultaneously, echo chambers may contribute to a decline in political tolerance by entrenching individuals in their ideological stances, encouraging bitterness toward opposing viewpoints, and aggravating an “us versus them” mindset. The goal of this study was to analyze the association among echo chambers (social media usage pattern, diverse viewpoints, confirmation bias, and content exposure), political polarization (behavioral polarization, intensity of political beliefs, attitude towards opposing, and political efficacy) and political tolerance (openness to differing viewpoints, political compromise, respect for political opponents, and willingness to engage in constructive dialogue) among youth. The current study's target population were undergraduate students at the University of Gujrat. Quantitative research design was used for present study. In this present study, a self-administered questionnaire with survey technique was used for the purpose of data collection from the youth of University of Gujrat. Taro Yamane formula was used to evaluate the sample size. The sample size was based on 289 students of faculty of social sciences (BS 2, 4, 6, and 8 semesters). Pearson’s correlation and simple linear regression techniques were used for the purpose of data analysis by using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS-2021). The result of present study indicated echo chambers had positive correlation .382 with political polarization. As well as the Pearson correlation value .500 shows a positive correlation with the echo chambers and political tolerance among youth. There is a significant relationship between echo chambers, political polarization and political tolerance.
References
Arguedas, R, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review.
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Fallin Hunzaker, M. B., ... & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221.
Bjånesøy, L., Ivarsflaten, E., & Berntzen, L. E. (2023). Public political tolerance of the far right in contemporary Western Europe. West European Politics, 46(7), 1264-1287.
Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(1), 17-33.
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118.
Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2016). The political environment on social media.
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, communication & society, 21(5), 729-745.
Falck, O., Gold, R., & Heblich, S. (2014). E-lections: Voting Behavior and the Internet. American Economic Review, 104(7), 2238-2265.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285.
Gaskins, B., & Jerit, J. (2012). Internet news: Is it a replacement for traditional media outlets?. The international journal of press/politics, 17(2), 190-213.
Geschke, D., Lorenz, J., & Holtz, P. (2019). The triple‐filter bubble: Using agent‐based modelling to test a meta‐theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 129-149.
Gibson, J. L. (2006). Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer's communism, conformity, and civil liberties. Perspectives on Politics, 4(1), 21-34.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(2), 260.
Harteveld, E., & Wagner, M. (2023). Does affective polarisation increase turnout? Evidence from Germany, The Netherlands and Spain. West European Politics, 46(4), 732-759.
Haw, A. L. (2020). What drives political news engagement in digital spaces? Reimagining ‘echo chambers’ in a polarised and hybridised media ecology. Communication Research and Practice, 6(1), 38-54.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.
Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press.
Kibet, A. (2020). SNSs and deliberative governance in a polarised society: the role of WhatsApp groups in Kenyan counties. University of Salford (United Kingdom).
Larcinese, V., & Miner, L. (2012). The political impact of the internet on US presidential elections. Unpublished manuscript.
Lee, A. H. Y. (2022). Social trust in polarized times: How perceptions of political polarization affect Americans’ trust in each other. Political behavior, 44(3), 1533-1554.
MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440-458.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). How the mass media and politically relevant social groups moderate the impact of individual-level characteristics. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 249-271). Oxford University Press.
Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161.
Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2013). “Not for all the tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PloS one, 8(4), e59837.
Napoli, P. M. (2014). Measuring media impact. The Norman Lear Center. http://www. learcenter. org/pdf/measuringmedia. pdf.
Oliver, J. E., Wood, T., & Bass, A. (2016). Liberellas versus Konservatives: Social status, ideology, and birth names in the United States. Political Behavior, 38, 55-81.
Pandey, S., & Ghosh, M. (2023). Bibliometric Review of Research on Misinformation: Reflective Analysis on the Future of Communication. Journal of Creative Communications, 18(2), 149-165.
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & Van Der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118.
Shane, S. (2017). The fake Americans Russia created to influence the election. The New York Times, 7(09).
Singh, S. P., & Mayne, Q. (2023). Satisfaction with democracy: a review of a major public opinion indicator. Public Opinion Quarterly, 87(1), 187-218.
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media.
Svolik, M. W. (2019). Polarization versus democracy. J. Democracy, 30, 20.
Taber, C. S., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Tufail, S., Baneen, U., Akram, B., & Sajid, R. (2015). Impact of social media on political efficacy and vote intention: A case of educated youth. JISR management and social sciences & economics, 13(1), 15-28.
Urman, A. (2020). Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, culture & society, 42(6), 857-879.
Levitsky, Z. (2018). Levitsky, S. & Ziblatt, D. How Democracies Die.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ummel Baneen, Rahat Fatima , Ezza Jabbar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
LEGALOPEDIA EDUCATINIA (PVT) LTD