Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook

Abstract

Recent findings showed that users on Facebook tend to select information that adhere to their system of beliefs and to form polarized groups – i.e., echo chambers. Such a tendency dominates information cascades and might affect public debates on social relevant issues. In this work we explore the structural evolution of communities of interest by accounting for users emotions and engagement. Focusing on the Facebook pages reporting on scientific and conspiracy content, we characterize the evolution of the size of the two communities by fitting daily resolution data with three growth models – i.e. the Gompertz model, the Logistic model, and the Log-logistic model. Although all the models appropriately describe the data structure, the Logistic one shows the best fit. Then, we explore the interplay between emotional state and engagement of users in the group dynamics. Our findings show that communities’ emotional behavior is affected by the users’ involvement inside the echo chamber. Indeed, to an higher involvement corresponds a more negative approach. Moreover, we observe that, on average, more active users show a faster shift towards the negativity than less active ones.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 29

1. 1.

   Quattrociocchi W. How does misinformation spread online? In WEF Agenda (World Economic Forum, 2016 ).

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Cacciatore M. A., Scheufele D. A. & Iyengar S. The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society 19, 7–23 (2016 ).

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Brown J., Broderick A. J. & Lee N. Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of interactive marketing 21, 2–20 (2007 ).

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Kahn R. & Kellner D. New media and internet activism: From the ‘battle of seattle’ to blogging. New media & society 6, 87–95 (2004 ).

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Quattrociocchi W., Conte R. & Lodi E. Opinions manipulation: Media, power and gossip. Advances in Complex Systems 14, 567–586 (2011 ).

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Quattrociocchi W., Caldarelli G. & Scala A. Opinion dynamics on interacting networks: media competition and social influence. Scientific reports 4 (2014 ).

   Not in our library10.1038/srep04938

7. 7.

   Kumar R., Mahdian M. & McGlohon M. Dynamics of conversations. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining 553–562 (ACM, 2010 ).

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Sunstein C. R. The law of group polarization. Journal of political philosophy 10, 175–195 (2002 ).

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Zollo F.. Emotional dynamics in the age of misinformation. Plos one 10, e0138740 (2015 ).

   Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0138740

10. 10.

    Bessi A.. Science vs conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation. Plos one 10, 02 (2015 ).

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0118093

11. 11.

    Del Vicario M.. The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 554–559, http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.abstract (2016 ).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1517441113

12. 12.

    Bessi A., Scala A., Rossi L., Zhang Q. & Quattrociocchi W. The economy of attention in the age of (mis) information. Journal of Trust Management (2014 ).

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Bessi A.. Viral misinformation: The role of homophily and polarization. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion 355–356 (International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2015 ).

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Bessi A.. Homophily and polarization in the age of misinformation. (to appear on) Eur. Phys. J. S. T. (2016 ).

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Zollo F.. Debunking in a world of tribes, http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.04267 (2015 ).

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Ciampaglia G. L.. Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. Plos one 10, e0128193 (2015 ).

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0128193

17. 17.

    Qazvinian V., Rosengren E., Radev D. R. & Mei Q. Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1589–1599 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011 ).

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Lazer D.. Computational social science. Science 323, 721–723, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/721 (2009 ).

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1167742

19. 19.

    Chambers J. M., Cleveland W. S., Kleiner B. & Tukey P. A. Graphical methods for data analysis. Champman & Hall, New York (1983 ).

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Milotti E., Vyshemirsky V., Sega M. & Chignola R. Interplay between distribution of live cells and growth dynamics of solid tumours. Scientific reports 2 (2012 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/srep00990

21. 21.

    Tindall M., Please C. & Peddie M. Modelling the formation of necrotic regions in avascular tumours. Mathematical biosciences 211, 34–55 (2008 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mbs.2007.09.002

22. 22.

    Ghil M.. Advanced spectral methods for climatic time series. Reviews of Geophysics 40, 1–41 (2002 ).

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Golyandina N. & Zhigljavsky A. A. Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time Series (Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 2013 ).

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Allen M. R. & Smith L. A. Monte Carlo SSA: detecting irregular oscillations in the presence of colored noise. Journal of Climate 9, 3373–3404 (1996 ).

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Groth A. & Ghil M. Monte carlo singular spectrum analysis (ssa) revisited: detecting oscillator clusters in multivariate datasets. Journal of Climate 28, 7873–7893 (2015 ).

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Facebook. Using the graph api. Website, https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/using-graph-api/ Last checked: 19.01.2014 (2013 ).

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Ferrante L., Bompadre S., Possati L. & Leone L. Parameter estimation in a gompertzian stochastic model for tumor growth. Biometrics 56, 1076–1081, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2677039 (2000 ).

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.01076.x

28. 28.

    Jukić D., Kralik G. & Scitovski R. Least-squares fitting gompertz curve. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 169, 359–375 (2004 ).

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Alessio S. M. Digital Signal Processing and Spectral Analysis for Scientists: Concepts and Applications (Springer, 2016 ).

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 6

• Regulating Ruminative Web Browsing Based on the Counterbalance Modeling Approach · 2022
  Not checked
• COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study · 2021
  No notice
• The echo chamber effect on social media · 2021
  No notice
• The COVID-19 social media infodemic · 2020
  No notice
• Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science · 2019
  Not checked
• Perceptions of Undue Influence Shed Light on the Folk Conception of Autonomy · 2018
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.