Political Opinions of Us and Them and the Influence of Digital Media Usage

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10913)


Democracies in the late 2010s are threatened by political movements from the borders of the political spectrum. Right-wing populist parties increasingly find agreement in larger parts of the population. How are these people convinced to these political beliefs? One explanation can be seen in polarization and the phenomena that arise from it such as the spiral of silence. In this article we empirically investigate how digital media usage influences the perception of polarization in Germany using a survey with 179 respondents. We use polarized opinions and measure agreement from two perspectives with them. We find an influence of social media usage on the perception of polarization in our sample. Further, polarization seems to be perceived differently depending on the topic. The results contribute to an understanding of how to adequately design presentation of sensitive or controversial topics in digital social media and could be utilized in student eduction to sensitize social media users to the effect of polarization of opinions.


Opinion forming Fake news Polarization Social media use 



The authors thank all participants for their openness to share their personal view on a sensitive topic. This work was funded by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia under the grant number 005-1709-0006, project “Digitale Mündigkeit” and project-number 1706dgn017. We also thank Karina Herdt, Jens Keulen, Natia-Marta Tsikelashvili, Ceren Yilmaz and Victoria Yuryeva for setting up the survey and collecting the data.


  1. 1.
    Lee, J.K., Choi, J., Kim, C., Kim, Y.: Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. J. Commun. 64(4), 702–722 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calero Valdez, A., Kluge, J., Ziefle, M.: You gotta fight for your right - of opinion leadership, distrust in elites, political efficacy, and the willingness to protest. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. SI(Special Issue on Populism) (submitted)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., Shanahan, J.: Growing up with television: cultivation processes. Media Eff. Adv. Theory Res. 2, 43–67 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pariser, E.: The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. Penguin, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spohr, D.: Fake news and ideological polarization: filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Bus. Inf. Rev. 34(3), 150–160 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogers, E.M., Cartano, D.G.: Methods of measuring opinion leadership. Public Opin. Q. 26, 435–441 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Myers, J.H., Robertson, T.S.: Dimensions of opinion leadership. J. Mark. Res. 9, 41–46 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCombs, M.E., Shaw, D.L.: The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opin. Q. 36(2), 176–187 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., Simons, A.: Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61(2), 195 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noelle-Neumann, E.: Die Schweigespirale. Piper (1980)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gearhart, S., Zhang, W.: ‘Was it something i said?’ ‘No, it was something you posted!’ A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 18(4), 208–213 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clemm von Hohenberg, B., Maes, M., Pradelski, B.S.: Micro influence and macro dynamics of opinions. SSRN (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suiter, J., Farrell, D.M., O’Malley, E.: When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 37(2), 198–212 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schelling, T.C.: Dynamic models of segregation. J. Math. Sociol. 1(2), 143–186 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mark, N.: Beyond individual differences: social differentiation from first principles. Am. Soc. Rev. 63, 309–330 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Resnick, P., Varian, H.R.: Recommender systems. Commun. ACM 40(3), 56–58 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dylko, I., Dolgov, I., Hoffman, W., Eckhart, N., Molina, M., Aaziz, O.: The dark side of technology: an experimental investigation of the influence of customizability technology on online political selective exposure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 73, 181–190 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    González, R.J.: Hacking the citizenry?: Personality profiling, ‘big data’ and the election of Donald Trump. Anthropol. Today 33(3), 9–12 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dimitrova, D.V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., Nord, L.W.: The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: evidence from panel data. Commun. Res. 41(1), 95–118 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations