Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Complexity
Volume 2018, Article ID 9502872, 18 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9502872
Research Article

Communication in Online Social Networks Fosters Cultural Isolation

ICS/Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen, Netherlands

Correspondence should be addressed to Marijn A. Keijzer; ln.gur@rezjiek.a.m

Received 17 May 2018; Revised 20 September 2018; Accepted 2 October 2018; Published 4 November 2018

Academic Editor: Roberto Natella

Copyright © 2018 Marijn A. Keijzer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. Habermas, “Civil society and the political public sphere,” in Between Facts and Norms, pp. 329–387, The MIT Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  2. A. Gimmler, “Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet,” Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 21–39, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. Y. Benkler, “Degrees of freedom, dimensions of power,” Daedalus, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 18–32, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook, “Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27, pp. 415–444, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. E. Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You, Penguin, London, United Kingdom, 2011.
  6. E. Bakshy, S. Messing, and L. A. Adamic, “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook,” American Association for the Advancement of Science: Science, vol. 348, no. 6239, pp. 1130–1132, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  7. C. R. Sunstein, “The law of group polarization,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 175–195, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. A. Flache, M. Mäs, T. Feliciani et al., “Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20, no. 4, 2017. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. R. Axelrod, “The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 203–226, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Flache, “How May Virtual Communication Shape Cooperation in a Work Team? A formal model based on social exchange theory,” Analyse & Kritik, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 258–278, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  11. S.-S. Wong and R. M. Burton, “Virtual teams: what are their characteristics, and impact on team performance?” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 339–360, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. T. Postmes and R. Spears, “Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1073–1083, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. S. Schumann, O. Klein, K. Douglas, and M. Hewstone, “When is computer-mediated intergroup contact most promising? Examining the effect of out-group members' anonymity on prejudice,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 77, pp. 198–210, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. L. D. Roberts, L. M. Smith, and C. M. Pollock, “’U ra lot bolder on the net’: Shyness and Internet use,” in Shyness: Development, Consolidation and Change, W. R. Crozier, Ed., pp. 121–138, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  15. P. Lazarsfeld and R. Merton, “Frienship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis,” in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. H. Page, Eds., pp. 18–66, Van Nostrand, New York, NY, USA, 1954. View at Google Scholar
  16. A. Wimmer and K. Lewis, “Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on facebook,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 583–642, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. R. Axtell, R. M. Axelrod, J. M. Epstein, and M. D. Cohen, “Aligning simulation models: a case study and results,” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 123–141, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. R. Hegselmann and U. Krause, “Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5, no. 3, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch, “Mixing beliefs among interacting agents,” Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), vol. 3, no. 01n04, pp. 87–98, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. X. Hao-Xiang, W. Hui-Li, and X. Zhao-Guo, “Opinion dynamics: a multidisciplinary review and perspective on future research,” International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, vol. 2, pp. 72–91, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. J. C. González-Avella, M. G. Cosenza, and K. Tucci, “Nonequilibrium transition induced by mass media in a model for social influence,” Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 1–4, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  22. R. Ulloa, C. Kacperski, and F. Sancho, “Institutions and cultural diversity: Effects of democratic and propaganda processes on local convergence and global diversity,” PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 4, 2016. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. A. Stivala, G. Robins, Y. Kashima, and M. Kirley, “Ultrametric distribution of culture vectors in an extended Axelrod model of cultural dissemination,” Scientific Reports, vol. 4, article 4870, pp. 1–9, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. R. Huckfeldt, P. E. Johnson, and J. Sprague, Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004. View at Scopus
  25. A. Flache, M. W. Macy, and K. Takács, “What sustains cultural diversity and what undermines it? Axelrod and beyond,” in Advancing Social Simulation: Proceedings of the First World Congress on Social Simulation, S. Takahashi, Ed., pp. 9–16, Springer, Kyoto, Japan, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  26. K. Klemm, V. M. Eguíluz, R. Toral, and M. San Miguel, “Nonequilibrium transitions in complex networks: a model of social interaction,” Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 67, no. 2, Article ID 026120, 6 pages, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. K. Klemm, V. M. Eguíluz, R. Toral, and M. S. Miguel, “Global culture: a noise-induced transition in finite systems,” Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 67, no. 4, Article ID 045101, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. M. Mäs, A. Flache, and D. Helbing, “Individualization as driving force of clustering phenomena in humans,” PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 6, no. 10, Article ID 1000959, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. L. De Sanctis and T. Galla, “Effects of noise and confidence thresholds in nominal and metric Axelrod dynamics of social influence,” Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 79, no. 4, Article ID 046108, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  30. D. Centola, J. C. González-Avella, V. M. Eguíluz, and M. San Miguel, “Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 905–929, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. F. Battiston, V. Nicosia, V. Latora, and M. S. Miguel, “Layered social influence promotes multiculturality in the Axelrod model,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, article 1809, 2017. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. A. Flache and M. W. Macy, “Local convergence and global diversity: From interpersonal to social influence,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 970–995, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. Centola and M. Macy, “Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 702–734, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. D. Lim, H. Lee, H. Zo, and A. Ciganek, “Opinion Formation in the Digital Divide,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. E. Pulick, P. Korth, P. Grim, and J. Jung, “Modeling interaction effects in polarization: Individual media influence and the impact of town meetings,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 19, no. 2, 2016. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. A. Boutyline and R. Willer, “The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks,” Political Psychology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 551–569, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. M. D. Vicario, A. Bessi, F. Zollo et al., “The spreading of misinformation online,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 554–559, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks,” Nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. A. Grow, A. Flache, and R. P. M. Wittek, “Global diversity and local consensus in status beliefs: The role of network clustering and resistance to belief change,” Sociological Science, vol. 4, pp. 611–640, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. L. H. Wong, P. Pattison, and G. Robins, “A spatial model for social networks,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 360, no. 1, pp. 99–120, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. C. R. Sunstein, Republic.com, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2002.
  42. J. Ugander, B. Karrer, L. Backstrom, and C. Marlow, “The anatomy of the facebook social graph,” 2011, https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4503.
  43. E. Bakshy, W. A. Mason, J. M. Hofman, and D. J. Watts, “Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM '11), pp. 65–74, Hong Kong, China, February 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. K. N. Hampton, L. S. Goulet, C. Marlow, and L. Rainie, “Why most Facebook users get more than they give,” 2012.
  45. N. E. Friedkin and E. C. Johnsen, Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics, vol. 33 of Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  46. M. W. Macy, J. A. Kitts, A. Flache, and S. Benard, “Polarization in dynamic networks: a hopfield model of emergent structure,” in Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis, pp. 162–173, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  47. M. Mäs and A. Flache, “Differentiation without distancing. explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 11, 2013. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus