Impact of Social Media Algorithms on Polarization Despite Perceived Diversity: Evidence from Pakistan
Keywords:
Social Media, Political Polarization, Algorithmic Bias, Generational Differences, Media Literacy, Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, Selective Exposure, Political EngagementAbstract
This study investigates how social media affects political involvement and polarization, with an emphasis on algorithmic effect, perceived exposure to varied viewpoints, and demographic characteristics. Using regression and mediation analysis, the study discovers that younger users experience bigger changes in political participation, but algorithmic personalization considerably boosts polarization. Paradoxically, perceived exposure to varied perspectives coincides with increased political divisiveness, indicating that users may misinterpret algorithmic "diversity." Behavioral characteristics such as selective following have a limited immediate impact on engagement, indicating more complicated long-term dynamics. The findings emphasize the importance of platform transparency, media literacy programs, and inclusive research in order to better comprehend the political implications of social media. This study adds to the continuing discussion regarding digital democracy, polarization, and the role of algorithms in affecting public discourse. To have a better grasp of these processes, future studies should use algorithmic analysis and broaden the demography of the elderly.
References
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media . American Economic Review, 110(3), 629-676.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., & Brown, T. W. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221.
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. (2015a). Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science (New York, N.Y.), 348. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015b). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. . Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 519–528). New York: ACM.
Barberá, P., & Rivero, G. (2015). Understanding the political representativeness of Twitter users. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 712–729.
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science , 26(10), 1531–1542.
Barnidge, M. (. (2017). Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings. Political Communication, 34(2), 302–321.
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612–10617.
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183–186.
Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018a). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media and Society , 20(7), 2450–2468.
Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35, 113-134.
Granovetter, M. S. (1977). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Habermas, J. (1991). . The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haim, M., Graefe, A., & Brosius, H.-B. (2018). Burst of the filter bubble? Digital Journalism, 6(3), 330–343.
Hapgood, F. (1995, January 11). The Media Lab at 10. Retrieved from Wired: www.wired.com/1995/11/media/TS: Link
Heatherly, K. A., Lu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2017). Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. . New Media and Society, 9(8), 1271–1289.
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
Mehran, K., & Iqbal, M. (2023). Use of Social Media and Construction of Political Intolerance: Analyzing the Effects of Twitter (X) and Facebook. Global Political Review, VIII, 8, 12-21.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays. New York : Oxford University Press.
Montalvo, J. G., & Reynal-Querol, M. (2005). Ethnic polarization, potential conflict,and civil wars. American Economic Review, 95(3), 796–816.
Mosseri, A. (2018, May 22). News feed ranking in three minutes flat. Retrieved from Facebook Newsroom: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/inside-feed-news-feed-ranking/
Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in Practice. American Political Science Review , 96(1), 111–126.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muzaffar, M., Yaseen, Z., & Safdar, S. (2020). Role of social media in political campaigns in Pakistan: A case study of 2018 elections. J. Pol. Stud., 27, 141.
Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2023.2298087.
Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. . Technical report, Stanford InfoLab.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. . New York: Simon & Schuster.
Saeed, M. U., Bilal, M. Z., & Raza, M. R. (2020). Political speeches and media agenda: electoral rigging movement—2013 as a building factor of media agenda in Pakistan. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 13(24), 2436-2445.
Shore, J., Baek, J., & Dellarocas, C. (2016). Network structure and patterns of information diversity on Twitter. arXiv.org, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06795.
Silver, L., Huang, C., & Taylor, K. (2019). In Emerging Economies, Smartphone and Social Media Users Have Broader Social Networks. . Pew Research Center report.
Suhay, E., Bello-Pardo, E., & Maurer, B. (2018). The polarizing effects of online partisan criticism: Evidence from two experiments. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 95–115.
Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Liars: Falsehoods and free speech in an age of deception. Oxford University Press.
Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 80–98). New York: Wiley.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Ifra Iftikhar, Umair Mahmood Bajwa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
LEGALOPEDIA EDUCATINIA (PVT) LTD