Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ABSTRACT
Most people associate with people like themselves, a process called homophily. Exposure to diversity, however,
makes us more informed as individuals and as a society. In
this paper, we investigate political disagreements on Facebook to explore the conditions under which diverse opinions can coexist online. Via a mixed methods approach
comprising 103 survey responses and 13 interviews with
politically engaged American social media users, we found
that participants who perceived more differences with their
friends engaged less on Facebook than those who perceived
more homogeneity. Weak ties were particularly brittle to
political disagreements, despite being the ties most likely to
offer diversity. Finally, based on our findings we suggest
potential design opportunities to bridge across ideological
difference: 1) support exposure to weak ties; and 2) make
common ground visible while friends converse.
Author Keywords
Social media; homophily; politics; Facebook; selfcensorship; tie strength; relationship management
ACM Classification Keywords
CSCW and HCI work has explored ways to increase exposure to diverse views. Novel algorithms and interaction
design can present a mix of political perspectives in news
aggregators [22], or can introduce people to others with
different views [10]. This growing line of social computing
work recognizes that design has the potential to nudge people towards more diverse viewpoints. Yet, systems in widespread production often reinforce homophily (e.g., Amazons product recommendations, Facebook friend suggestions). Systems like these make suggestions based on similar interests, often creating an echo chamber [10]. This
has also been shown in many large-scale network analyses
(e.g., [1, 21]). To date, our online social life mimics our
offline inclination to associate with people like us.
However, social networks are not entirely homogeneous.
Three quarters (73%) of social media users have disagreed
with a friends post [25]. People already cohabitate in online communities with friends who hold different opinions.
How do they make it work? Sometimes, of course, it ends
with the nuclear option: unfriending. Other times, social
media strengthens friendships [8, 17]. Social media enables
these relationships to be expressed and maintained, despite
inevitable disagreements.
We are interested in the intricacies of relationships in the
context of political discussions on social media because
when they work outthey suggest the conditions under
which diverse opinions can coexist online. In this paper, we
present a systematic investigation of heated political discussions via social media. In 2013, three contentious federal
events rattled the political landscape in the United States:
budget cuts, gay marriage debates, and gun control regulations. It is in this political climate that we studied how Facebook users manage relationships with people who hold
different opinions. Our mixed methods study comprises 103
survey responses and 13 phone interviews about Facebook
usage and friendships during these events with social media
users who have strong political opinions.
We find that our participants who perceive more friends as
holding viewpoints different to their own engage less on
Facebook than those with more similarity in their network.
Echoing earlier social science work [20], we also find that
weak ties talk about politics less often, and are brittle when
Our inquiry was informed by two broad topics: the prevalence of homophily in social networks and the pressing
need for more political deliberation. Social computing research at the intersection of these areas can provide insights
into user behavior and design innovations.
Homophily and exposure to differences
algorithms and interaction design can present a mix of political perspectives in news aggregators [22], or can introduce people to others of different views [10]. Some of these
interactive systems have demonstrated the potential to support political deliberation [19, 30]. For example, systems
can support weighing multiple sides of issues [19].
The design of these systems rests on conflicting and complex findings. First of all, displaying opposing views can
polarize people even more strongly towards their original
position [22, 31]. Second, some people explicitly seek out
different opinions, while others are challenge adverse,
seeking content that matches their own views [12, 22]. Finally, people of different views might use different terminology to explain political concepts [2]. Systems design has
made great progress, yet results remain mottled. We contribute to this scholarship by simply asking, how do people
currently manage political differences?
Managing differences
Online social networks are not entirely homogeneous. Disagreeing with a friend is not uncommon. 73% of social media users report disagreeing with a friends post [25]. In
fact, people tend to overestimate similarities with their
friends [15]. Discovering this discrepancy can lead to social
tension. While this has only led 18% of social media users
to unfriend1, block or hide someone [25], it does not mean
that the relationship remained intact. What happens to the
other 82%?
Politics are extensively discussed in online communities
that are not political [2, 13, 23]. In fact, 40% of the U.S.
adult population reports that their friends post political content on social network sites [25], and 15% of content that
users share on Facebook is political [28]. When political
tensions arise in these non-political places, people tend to
employ ad-hoc mechanisms to minimize animosity [13, 23].
For example, political posts on non-political blogs often
contain warnings such as please excuse my rant [23].
In social media, people employ a variety of mechanisms to
manage tensions [11]. One relevant mechanism is selfcensorship, or refraining from posting [9, 28, 34]. Politics is
a topic that is often self-censored [28]. A Pew study found
that 72% of survey respondents did not post political links,
and 66% do not post their own political thoughts on Facebook [26]. Because people tend to overestimate similarities
with their friends [15], self-censorship and engagement
with social media might depend on the degree of similarity
that users perceive in their network.
This prior work motivates our investigation around political
disagreements in social media. Homophily suggests that
most people connect to others similar to them on Facebook.
However, friends do not always agree. These disagreements
1
The term unfriend here is referenced from the cited article. Unfriending is removing a connection on a social media platform.
Other websites use different terms (e.g. unfollowing on Twitter).
Our study consisted of a survey administered in waves between March 1, 2013 and April 30, 2013. Each survey
phase was followed by a series of semi-structured interviews with a subset of the survey respondents. In total, we
obtained 103 survey responses and conducted 13 interviews. Using different events was an advantage because we
could see how different types of debates affected engagement and relationship management.
Recruitment
Our questionnaire2 was constructed around our two research questions and included a total of 34 questions. Some
questions were optional and some were conditional. To
answer our question about how perceived differences affected Facebook usage, we asked participants about how
many of their friends they thought had different opinions
from them about the event. To answer this question, participants selected a range of percentage (e.g. 0-9%, 10-19%
etc). We asked about their frequency of usage of Facebook,
the amount of posts and comments they made, and whether
2
Perceived
difference
0%-29%
N
51
30%-59%
43
60%-100%
Interpretation
Tie strength
1-2
Interpretation
Weak ties
N
45
3-5
Strong ties
57
Sample
st
500
Same-sex
marriage
Mar. 26
th
700
Gun laws
debates
th
700
Apr. 17
Moderate
Conserv.
None
Total
103
103
Social
67 (65%)
14 (14%)
19 (18%)
3 (3%)
Total
Econ.
48 (47%)
22 (21%)
30 (29%)
3 (3%)
1,900
Responses
19
42
42
103
Response rate
3.8%
5.8%
5.8%
5.4%
Female
9 (47%)
21 (51%)
26 (62%)
54%
Age 18-40
13 (68%)
29 (69%)
24 (57%)
64%
Age >40
6 (32%)
13 (31%)
18 (43%)
36%
Data analysis
targeting politically engaged users, we might have also biased our sample towards diversity seekers [22].
A preliminary overview of our participant data shows that
most of them perceive their friends to be similar to them.
This parallels homophily research: people tend to associate
with people similar to them. In addition, our data suggest
that interacting with people of different political opinions
was a common experience. The fact that our participants
could relate to the experience of dealing with a friend of
different opinion could be biased by our population sample
of politically active users. This could be due to homophily
(they would be most likely to be friends with others of
strong political opinion) or because they were more attuned
to noticing posts about politics. Most participants (71%) did
not frequently talk about politics with their friends of differing opinion. Though many (60%) did see something they
did not agree with, and did not comment on it. Facebook
was a place to talk about politics: 79% of the survey respondents posted at least one thing during the political
events. Privacy controls to limit posts to a small audience
were rarely used [29]. Participants preferred to not post
anything rather than set a privacy setting.
Follow-up interviews and analysis
Our first research question was: How do perceptions of differences affect engagement on Facebook during political
events? We obtained one to three relationships per interviewee, amounting to 33 dyads total. From our analysis of
these interactions, we found that perceptions of similarities
shaped behaviors during political events that left few opportunities to be exposed to differing opinions.
Logging on
Rather than joining heated debates, some participants wanted to show support without inviting confrontation. A simple
comment or liking a post could provide an opportunity to
show support in a semi-private setting:
I think like one friend wrote [how she felt] I might have
commented like I do too, or like word or something like
that so more so like I did those things so that friends
[] know that theyre supported by me. But um.. people
Our participants reported a number of negotiations employed to manage relationships with friends of different
opinions. Rather than engaging with their friends, our participants discussed ways in which they actively avoided
confrontation.
Unfriending, blocking, hiding
This Facebook [friendship page feature] is really interesting. We both like To Kill a Mockingbird and the
Bible and music. (P6)
This brought forward the reasons they were friends in the
first place. Through reminiscing on these aspects of her
friendship that were documented on Facebook, she remembered character strengths that she might consider to be deposits in the friendship bank account. Elements that are
displayed on the friendship page could be highlighted while
friends communicate. This could mean leveraging the
Friendship page, as a more readily available resource.
For many weak ties Facebook was the only means of communication: 42% of survey respondents who mentioned
weak ties communicated with them on Facebook at least
once a month, while 4% communicated by email, 4% saw
each other in person, and none talked over the phone. This
means that our participants gathered impressions of their
weak ties almost solely based on Facebook behavior. As
this participant suggests, the ability to relate and sympathize may be different in person than online:
Youre not able to see the look in someones eye or
um... hear their tone. I feel like some of the Christians
that I know who are against marriage equality [] they
genuinely do love people. And I hear that in their voice,
and I hear that tension in their voice because they know
how they sound and they dont want to sound that way.
Like I hear it. And you cant express that online. Like
you can hear it face to face, but you cant express it online. Theres just something missing that cant be captured through a screen (P6)
By studying these relationships in specific events of contention, we highlighted some of the tensions around managing
relationships with dissenting friends. Recalling past history
was a way to settle the shock of unexpected behavior, or
putting the relationship into perspective by rationalizing the
reasons that caused the difference. Showing common
ground and allowing more opportunities to engage with
weak ties could strengthen these bonds.
DISCUSSION
Our first design implication is making common ground visible (i.e., highlighting past interactions and shared interests).
Past research has shown that weak ties are important for
getting access to information and being exposed to other
ideas [16]. Yet, supporting communication between weak
ties is delicate. Our finding that weak ties primarily communicate through Facebook echoes previous work [14].
Thus as the medium through which these relationships are
expressed and maintained, Facebook has the potential of
helping people stay in contact with weak ties. Through
bringing common ground to light, such as displaying a past
history of the friendship next to an argument could help
alleviate some tensions.
Second, increasing exposure and engagement between
weak ties could make them more resilient in the face of
political disagreement. Not only are people mainly friends
with like-minded others, but their few friends of different
opinions will not expose them to other views. Bursting the
filter bubble could happen in existing social networks, simply by hearing the voices of those with different opinions.
The absence of dissenting friends from the debate means
missed potential for discussion and deliberation; this reinforces the echo chamber. On Facebooks newsfeed, where
the algorithm for displaying posts is unknown, this effect
might be redoubled: people who do not communicate with
each other do not appear in each others newsfeed. Rather
than showing extremes, all supporting or all dissenting
posts, the newsfeed could select a subset of each side of the
argument to present a more nuanced display of opinions
[22]. We speculate that these changes could bring more
weak ties to light since they are the ones who are less emphasized in the newsfeed currently.
Social media might be able to create bridges across ideologies. Insofar as this cross-communication currently occurs,
our findings suggest that users may remove themselves
from the conversation or from the website. Currently, muffling political discussions, or at least discouraging them,
might create a more welcoming environment. This has the
consequence of further digging trenches between friends of
differing opinions. Designing social media towards nudging
users to strengthen relationships with weak ties of different
opinions could have beneficial consequences for the platform, for users, and for society.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Bishop, B., The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of LikeMinded America is Tearing Us Apart. 2009. Mariner
Books.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006.
3(2): p. 77-101.
Brzozowski, M., Hogg, T., and Szabo G. Friends and
foes: Ideological social networking. Proc. CHI, 2008.
817-820.
Burke, M. and Kraut, R. Using Facebook After Losing
a Job: Differential Benefits of Strong and Weak Ties.
Proc. CSCW, 2013. 1419-1430.
Burke, M., Kraut, R., and Marlow, C. Social Capital on
Facebook: Differentiating Uses and Users. Proc. CHI,
2011. 571-580.
Das, S., and Kramer, A. Self-Censorship on Facebook.
Proc. ICWSM. 2013.
Doris-Down, A., Versee, H., and Gilbert, E. Political
Blend: An Application Designed to Bring People
Together Based on Political Differences. Proc. C&T,
2013.
Duggan, M. and Brenner, J. The Demographics of
Social Media Users 2012. Pew Internet and
American Life Project, 2013.
Garrett, R.K., Echo chambers online?: Politically
motivated selective exposure among Internet news
users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
2009. 14(2): p. 265-285.
Gilbert, E., Blogs Are Echo Chambers: Blogs Are Echo
Chambers. Proc. HICSS. 2008.
Gilbert, E. and Karahalios, K. Predicting tie strength
with social media. Proc. CHI, 2009. 211-220.
Goel, S., Mason, W., and Watts, D.J. Real and
perceived attitude agreement in social networks.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010.
99(4) 611-621.
Granovetter, M.S., The Strength of Weak Ties. The
American Journal of Sociology, 1973. 78(6) 13601380.
Hampton, K., Sessions Goulet, L., et al. Social
networking sites and our lives. Pew Internet and
American Life Project, 2011.
Hemphill, L., Otterbacher, J., and Shapiro, M. Whats
Congress Doing on Twitter? Proc. CSCW, 2013. 877886.
Kriplean, T., Morgan, J., et al. Supporting Reflective
Public Thought with considerate. Proc. CSCW, 2012.
265-274.