Advertisement

Together and Separate? An Exploratory Study of Political Polarization on Social Media During the 2016 Brazilian Political Crisis

  • Patricia Ferreira Alves
  • Bruce MutsvairoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This research is centred on the impact that social media has on social life, focusing particularly on political discussions among Facebook users in Brazil using the 2016 political crisis to question whether online participation enhances group polarization. Alves and Mutsvairo explore digitally mediated discussions during the 2016 Brazilian political crisis. Were the discussions as polarized as claimed by conventional media outlets? If so, did social media play a role in maximizing potential polarization among citizens during the aforementioned period? For this purpose, this chapter uses group polarization theory to question the extent to which polarization can be nourished in the Brazilian digital sphere. Methodologically, data was gathered by approaching Facebook users through a Web-based questionnaire, containing open questions (qualitative data) along with multiple-choice questions (quantitative data).

References

  1. Andreoni, J., & Mylovanov, T. (2012). Diverging Opinions. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4, 209–232.Google Scholar
  2. Backstrom, L. (2013, August 6). News Feed FYI: A Window into News Feed. Homepage of Facebook. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/business/news/News-Feed-FYI-A-Window-Into-News-Feed
  3. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chenc, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Political Science. Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of Political Polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barchfield, J. (2016, April 16). Rival Camps Reflect Brazil’s Divide Amid Impeachment. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/rival-camps-reflect-brazils-divide-amid-impeachment/2016/04/16/b0181f90-0388-11e6-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html
  7. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosch, T., & Mutsvairo, B. (2017). Pictures, Protests and Politics: Mapping Twitter Images during South Africa’s Fees Must Fall Campaign. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 38(2), 71–89.Google Scholar
  9. boyd, d. (2010). Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information Through Social Media. Educause Review, 45(5), 26.Google Scholar
  10. boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (2013). Communication Power (2nd ed.). [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
  12. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (2nd ed.). [Kindle Version].Google Scholar
  13. Costa, C. (2013, July 11). Brasileiros ‘descobrem’ mobilização em redes sociais durante protestos. BBC Brasil. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2013/07/130628_protestos_redes_personagens_cc
  14. de Castro, H. C., & Reis, F. T. (2012). Participação política no Brasil no século XXI: mudanças e continuidades. Revista de Ciência Política, 21(2), 20–33.Google Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have American’s Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102, 690–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, J. H. (2003). Have Americans’ Attitudes Become More Polarized?—An Update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Facebook. (2016, April 19). 102 milhões de brasileiros compartilham seus momentos no Facebook todos os meses. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/business/news/102-milhes-de-brasileiros-compartilham-seus-momentos-no-facebook-todos-os-meses
  18. Fellet, J. (2016, March 28). Brasil caminha para polarização similar à dos EUA, diz pesquisador. BBC Brasil. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2016/03/160327_polarizacao_eua_pesquisador_jf_if
  19. Folha de S.Paulo. (2016, April 10). Cerca separará manifestantes pró e contra impeachment em Brasília. Retrieved from http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2016/04/1759494-cerca-separara-manifestantes-pro-e-contra-impeachment-em-brasilia.shtml
  20. Forbes. (2014). The Evolution of Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emii45hdlj/2008-facebooks-homepage/
  21. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure Among Internet News Users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizon, 53(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitts, J. A. (2006). Social Influence and the Emergence of Norms Amid Ties of Amity and Enmity. Simulation Modeling Practice and Theory, 14, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Logan, B. (2008, April 6). Facebook Chat: Now We’re Talking. Facebook. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/facebook-chat-now-were-talking/12811122130
  26. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miekle, G. (2018). The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (pp. 233–256). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Molony, T., & Dwyer, M. (2019). Social Media and Politics in Africa: Democracy, Security and Surveillance. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  29. Monroy-Hernández, A., & Spiro, E. (2013, July 4). How Brazilian Protesters Are Using Twitter. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://blog.fuselabs.org/post/54384449224/how-is-the-brazilian-uprising-using-twitter
  30. Murthy, D. (2018). Introduction to Social Media, Activism, and Organization. Social Media and Society. (4) 1 205630511775071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mutsvairo, B. (2018). Social Media Trajectories in Zimbabwe. In G. Miekle (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (pp. 233–256). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Poell, T., & Van Dijck, J. (2015). Social Media and Activist Communication. In C. Atton (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media (pp. 527–537). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Pujol, A., Rocha, F., & Sampaio, F. (2014). Manifestações Populares no Brasil Atual: Sociedade civil em rede e reivindicações sobre o poder político. XIII Coloquio Internacional de Geocrítica. El control del espacio y los espacios de control, Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/coloquio2014/Antoni%20Francesc%20Tulla%20i%20Pujol.pdf
  34. Rabin, M., & Schrag, J. L. (1999). First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 37–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ribeiro, M. M., & Ortellado, P. (2016, April 1). Perfil digital dos manifestantes: o abismo aberto pela polarização. El Pais. Retrieved from http://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2016/03/28/opinion/1459128271_535467.html
  36. Robins-Early, N. (2016, April 1). Brazil’s Massive Corruption Scandal Is Polarizing the Country. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brazil-corruption-scandal_us_56fbf5dae4b083f5c6063e80
  37. Stutzman, F., Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2012). Silent Listeners: The Evolution of Privacy and Disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 4(2), 7–41.Google Scholar
  38. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Economist. (2013, June 18). The Streets Erupt. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/06/protests-brazil
  40. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding Social Media Logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallace, P. (2015). The Psychology of the Internet (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watts, J. (2013, June 21). Brazil Erupts in Protest: More than a Million on the Streets. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/21/brazil-police-crowds-rio-protest
  44. Watts, J. (2016, April 12). Brazil’s ‘Impeachment Wall’ May Be New but Divisions Have Always Been There. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/12/brazil-impeachment-wall-dilma-rousseff-vote
  45. Yardi, S., & boyd, d. (2010). Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations