Exploring the Impact of Social Media on Political Polarization: A Comparative Study of Online Discourse in the 2020 US Presidential Election
Keywords:
Social Media, Political Polarization, US Presidential Election, Twitter, Facebook, InstagramAbstract
This study investigates the relationship between social media usage and political polarization during the 2020 US Presidential Election. A comparative analysis of online discourse on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram reveals the extent to which social media platforms contribute to the amplification of partisan rhetoric and the erosion of civil discourse. Our findings suggest that social media usage is associated with increased political polarization, and that online platforms can perpetuate echo chambers and filter bubbles that reinforce existing beliefs.
References
- Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.009
- Afrobarometer. (2018). Democracy and political polarization in Kenya: Evidence from the Afrobarometer. Retrieved from https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Working%20paper/AfrobarometerWP151-Kenya-Political-Polarization.pdf
- Afrobarometer. (2020).A fro baro meter survey data. Retrieved from https://www.afrobarometer.org/
- Asatsuma, S. (2018). Polarization in Japanese public opinion: Economic inequality, social policy and politics. Asian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 148-166. DOI: 10.1080/02185377.2018.1450579
- Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
- Bode, L., & Dalrymple, K. E. (2020). Politics in 140 characters or less: Campaign communication, network heterogeneity, and Twitter use by US politicians. Political Communication, 37(2), 226-249.
- Bovet, A., & Makse, H. A. (2019). Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-9.
- Clarke, H. D., Sanders, D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2017). UK general election 2017: Reflections on the campaign and its aftermath. Political Quarterly, 88(2), 286-293. DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.12418.
- Conover, M. D., Ferrara, E., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2018). The digital echo chamber: Understanding the referral structure of political memes on Facebook. Political Communication, 35(3), 396-418.
- Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320.
- Guess, A. M., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), eaau4586. Guess,
- A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 472-480.
- Hobolt, S. B. (2018). Brexit and the 2017 UK general election: A second-order election model of the Brexit vote. The Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(5), 1095-1103. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12751
- Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
- Klapper, J. T. (1960). The Effects of Mass Communication. Free Press.
- Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283-301. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1121949
- Mare, A., & Adi, A. (2019). Social media, election campaigning, and political polarization: Evidence from Africa. Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 832-848.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) IJSRST

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.