During the 2016 American presidential election, the possible impact of social media algorithm and echo chamber effects on socio-political polarization and perhaps even voting results, attracted much scholarly attention. Such socio-political polarization was present, at least to a degree, also in Asian countries with diverse political and cultural systems. Exposure to heterogeneous perspectives has been found to enhance individuals’ political participation when they get used to diverse online discourse environments (Kim, Hsu, & de Zúñiga, Citation2013). In contrast, those in information cocoons surrounded by similar viewpoints or like-minded values, tended to filter out dissenting views, firm in their specific world views, and tended to go to extremes easily (Sunstein, Citation2009). Two opposing arguments about the Internet and social media depict different attributes of polarization. On one hand, the openness of the Internet allows individuals to receive different ideas, which likely decreases the effects of polarization (Garrett, Carnahan, & Lynch, Citation2013; Hong & Kim, Citation2016). On the other hand, as increasing empirical evidence shows, polarization can be exacerbated under selective exposure to divisive ideologies and information on social network sites.
Social media is considered a contributor to ideology polarization as its algorithm leads to filter bubbles that screen out differing views while enhancing similar political beliefs and perspectives (Hong & Kim, Citation2016). Through algorithmic personalization, liked-minded contents are promoted or filtered, which magnifies the effects of the echo chamber (Dubois & Blank, Citation2018). Evidence of echo chambers on social media is supported by studies using digital trace data (Terren & Borge, Citation2021). Social media heavy users are likely to have scanty network heterogeneity as a result of limited exposure to different perspectives, which reinforces polarization as a result of less exposure to diverse viewpoints (Lee, Choi, Kim, & Kim, Citation2014). Internet and social media algorithms have been criticized for worsening social-political polarization when these black-box machinery mechanisms predetermine users’ exposure to information. Those exposed to homogeneous political views believe their views are held by the majority, which deepens the gulf between political parties or social groups different from them and thus cause political turmoil and societal chaos. Yarchi, Baden, and Kligler-Vilenchik’s (Citation2020) computational communication research confirms social media effects on political polarization.
According to Yarchi et al. (Citation2020), political polarization are categorized into interactional polarization, positional polarization and affective polarization. Political polarization is shaped by individual political attitudes or partisan dispositions (Coffey & Joseph, Citation2012). Media framing, as the second-level of agenda setting, selects and emphasizes facts and interpretations to shape public perceptions and tell stories to conform to their media narratives (Morstatter, Wu, Yavanoglu, Corman, & Liu, Citation2018). The partisan framing of conflicts is shown in mass media. Attention to political news influences viewer behaviors and aggravates polarization, which is strongly affected by individual partisan and ideological dispositions (Coffey & Joseph, Citation2012). Through algorithmic customization, social media use that involves complexity of multi-stakeholders’ agenda-setting and framing forces is regarded as effective tools to influentially shape ideology, identity and socio-political polarization. Increasing social media engagement contributes to political polarization (Gruzd & Roy, Citation2014).
This special issue focuses on the phenomenon of socio-political polarization in Asia, featuring six articles with different methodological approaches. They analyze the causes and impact of polarization related to political ideology, social media and algorithm, and media framing issues. Five out of six articles selected for this special issue were initially presented at international conferences held by Taiwan Institute of Governance and Communication Research (TIGCR). They aim at showcasing original scholarly work based on data collected by TIGCR and examining definitional, operational and practical issues related to the study of socio-political polarization in Asian context.
The special issue begins with two survey articles investigating political polarization and its consequences for democracy in Taiwan. Huang and Kuo investigated the relationship of individual characteristics (i.e. Taiwanese-Chinese identity, partisanship, and media exposure) with actual and perceived polarization defined and operationalized in their study concerning the political cleavage of independence or unification with China. They also compared how two types of political polarization influenced individual affective polarization. The results showed that individual’s Chinese–Taiwanese identity and the strength of partisanship contributed most to higher levels of perceived polarization, which in turn penetrated into their social life. The authors found a significant association between two types of polarization, identified perceived polarization, not actual polarization, as the main source of conflict, and further confirmed the effects of perceived polarization on affective polarization in Taiwan.
Next, Tsai and Tsai applied the rally ‘round the flag effect to the increase in support for Taiwan independence after President Tsai Ing-wen rejected China’s ‘one country, two systems’ proposal. Taking advantage of within-individual differences in two-wave panel data, this paper presents the factors of Independence/unification (IU) views and ascertains the effects of change in variables such as approval of the president’s handling cross-Strait relations at different time points. The results showed that Taiwanese changed their IU views because of both the external and domestic environment. People who perceived economic growth and held favorable views on President Tsai and her handling of Cross-Strait relations tended towards the independence side. As for the between effect, individual feelings about two major political parties stand out as the significant predictors of IU views. In terms of media effect, watching political-slant TV news would affect IU views.
Considering the widespread cross-cutting exposure for democratic deliberation in the age of algorithms, the next two articles analyzed 2018 TiGCR national survey data to investigate social media’s cross-cutting exposure. First, Chen, Ai and Guo examined the effect of social media’s cross-cutting exposure on political attitudinal change. The results showed that checking disagreeing information and expressing opinion played a significant role in mediating the relationship between exposure to cross-cutting information and attitude change. People who expressed opinions after being exposed to cross-cutting information tended to change their attitudes, while those who ignored the disagreeing information after the exposure did not. More importantly, the indirect effect of cross-cutting exposure on attitude through information checking was contingent on the levels of individuals’ openness to diversity and social network homogeneity. This indirect effect was stronger when the level of openness to diversity was higher, but weaker when the level of social network homogeneity was higher.
In the next article, Lin proposed a conceptual model to depict the roles of perceived realism and approval of algorithmic curation in the relationship between cross-cutting exposure and online political engagement. The results show a negative association between social media’s cross-cutting exposure and online political engagement; exposure to cross-cutting perspectives may reduce online political engagement by way of decreased perceived realism. Lin’s study advances the understanding of the underlying psychological mechanism beneath cross-cutting exposure in relation to online political engagement and perceived realism of political information.
Moving toward online opinions, sentiment and news framing of polarized nuclear policy, Lin’s mixed-method study uses a big data approach to examine cross-platform public sentiments towards Taiwan’s first nuclear energy referendum, and further conducts content analysis for nuclear news framing strategies. Sentiment analysis showed polarized and negative affective attitudes towards the nuclear referendum, regardless of media types. The cross-platform big data analysis found that media agenda-setting of the nuclear referendum was politically-laden, similar to news content analysis results. Content analysis of environmental news framing also found that nuclear news was not eco-centric. In nuclear narratives, dramatic framing was used more than substantive framing. The study further found that mainstream and alternative media had no significant differences in using generic and environmental news framing to report nuclear referendum issues.
The final article shifts the attention to political polarization in India and examines WhatsApp’s echo chamber effect, misinformation and fact-checking failures. Kanthawala and Maddox conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with Indian WhatsApp users to understand how their usage and engagement influenced political polarization. The results showed that Indian users expressed familiarity with Whatsapp politically polarizing content without engagement, with intense hopes for effective content moderation. The study also proposed a holistic approach to improve the government and tech companies’ top-down misinformation measures, in order to advance the understanding of Indian misinformation ecosystem.
Asian communication research on socio-political polarization adds diversity to the field and makes insightful contributions to communication theories and practices as well. The present special issue represents various political, cultural and media contexts as well as a diverse range of methodological perspectives. We believe this special issue will provide crucial empirical insights regarding the understanding of Asian polarization. By taking stock, the special issue is a timely and important research yardstick about this part of the world. It will provide a useful starting point for further exploring and discussing recent developments in (social) media effect, polarization, and digital governance in Asia and what such developments imply for scholars, practitioners and policy-makers worldwide. Finally, this special issue could not have been accomplished without the collegiality of the AJC team, led by Dr Ang, and the thoughtful feedback from peer reviewers. Guest editing this special issue, we appreciate colleagues’ meaningful inputs and hope Asian communication research thrives.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Trisha T. C. Lin
Trisha T.C. Lin (Ph.D., University of Hawaii, Manoa) is professor at Department of Radio and Television, College of Communication, National Chengchi University, Taiwan. She is the research fellow of Taiwan Institute for Governance and Communication Research. She published nearly 60 new media-related journal articles regarding mobile media and communication, adoption and use of emerging media technologies, digital journalism, and health communication.
Chia-Hung Tsai
Chia-hung Tsai (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Research Fellow of Election Study Center and Taiwan Institute for Governance and Communication Research, National Chengchi University, Taiwan. His major research fields are election studies, public opinion and campaign politics. He has published his research on Electoral Studies, Social Science Quarterly, Party Politics and other academic journals. Dr. Tsai was a visiting scholar at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2012-2013).
References
- Coffey, D. J., & Joseph, P. H. (2012). A polarized environment: The effect of partisanship and ideological values on individual recycling and conservation behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 116–139.
- Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745.
- Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113–134.
- Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy and Internet, 6, 28–45.
- Hong, S., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Political polarization on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 777–782.
- Kim, Y., Hsu, S. H., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498–516.
- Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702–722.
- Morstatter, F., Wu, L., Yavanoglu, U., Corman, S. R., & Liu, H. (2018). Identifying framing bias in online news. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 1(2), 1–18.
- Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Terren, L., & Borge, R. (2021). Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Communication Research, 9, 99–118.
- Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2020). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 98–139.