When Twitter users hear out the other side, they become more polarized

[ProudLib72]

Link: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/18/17989856/twitter-polarization-echo-chambers-social-media

This story suggests a straightforward solution: If only we crossed the informational aisle, if only the liberals would watch a bit of Fox and the conservatives would spend some time with Rachel Maddow, we would realize the other side is more like us than we thought, that they make some good points too, and our enmity and polarization would ebb.

Beginning in October 2017, a group of political scientists and sociologists decided to test this theory. In the largest study of its kind ever conducted, they paid 1,220 regular Twitter users who identified as either Democrats or Republicans to follow a bot retweeting elected officials, media figures, and opinion leaders from the other side. The participants took regular surveys asking about their views on 10 issues ranging from immigration to government waste to corporate profits to LGBTQ rights. Those surveys — this will be important later — let them mark their view on a 7-point scale ranging from most conservative to most liberal.

The researchers were testing the collision between two popular models. In one, “contact between opposing groups can challenge stereotypes that develop in the absence of positive interactions between them.” In the other, “exposure to those with opposing political views may create backfire effects that exacerbate political polarization.”

The backfire theorists won the day. The results of the month-long exposure to popular, authoritative voices from the other side of the aisle was an increase in issue-based polarization. “We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment,” write the authors. “Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant.”

There is a lot more info at the link. This is just a quick summary to get you interested.

[jberryhill]

1. What we are finding out, in general

Is that various assumptions on which our particular model of democracy is based, are simply not correct. Nonetheless, we continue to cling to them as irrationally as if they were religious beliefs.

We want to believe that people behave according to a fairly simple rational model. They just don't. We will believe otherwise at our peril.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. People don't want to think they might have been wrong, so exposure to contrary ideas

is more likely to make them dig their heels in and be even more strongly what they were in the first place. It's not rational to think people will behave rationally because people are primarily emotional, whether they are willing to believe it or not.

[ProudLib72]

3. The interesting bit is how differently liberals reacted compared to conservatives

With conservatives being the ones who dug in their heels. This is what we call "sore winners".

[rogue emissary]

4. wonder if someone else will attempt this study in the real world.

I vaguely remember reading an article about how people move away from extremist views once they interact with someone with an opposing viewpoint. So I wonder if the online aspect of the test is what skewed the Republicans to their extreme.

I don't think most people can change their political opinions and beliefs. Yet, I'm still interested in those that do and what causes that change.

Hell, there's science that points to liberals and conservatives use different parts of our brains to form our opinion.

[NewJeffCT]

5. Interesting study

Two points:

1) I think interacting on Twitter is different than interacting IRL - you're often anonymous, or semi-anonymous on Twitter.

2) While Rachel Maddow is definitely liberal and a Democrat, her views are far less extreme on the left than Sean Hannity on Fox, many RWers on Twitter or most of RW talk radio. People on the left that are as extreme as Hannity, Jones, Limbaugh, etc are probably not identifying as Democrats anymore and/or don't have any sort of significant audience.

[ProudLib72]

6. I agree with both assessments

And would point out that your second one suggests the frailty of liberal politics. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Instead, I mean that liberal politics can only function in a narrow band of ideology. Too far to the left or right and we lose people. The question is, Do we broaden our ideological scope (big tent) or rely on people to realize that liberal politics benefits the greatest number? I think we know the answer to that question, but the former method seems increasingly enticing in the current political atmosphere.