A common argument against social media in recent years is that they help to create echo chambers that have contributed to the polarization of politics in recent years. Whilst this narrative largely paints a negative picture regarding the role of social media, a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania suggests social networks can also have a role in overcoming this obstacle.
The researchers quizzed a few thousand Republicans and Democrats on climate change related data concerning Arctic sea-ice levels. The initial analysis found that around 40% of Republicans misinterpreted the data, versus 26% of Democrats. Each participant was then asked to participate in anonymous social media networks where they could share opinions about the data, before reassessing the data again.
On the second sweep, 88% of Republicans got the analysis correct, against 86% of democrats, this despite their social network interactions only being with fellow Republicans or Democrats. For those who were not permitted such interactions, but were instead given time alone to reflect, retained their original perspectives.
Changing minds
“New scientific information does not change people’s minds. They can always interpret it to match their beliefs,” the researchers say. “But, if you allow people to interact with each other in egalitarian social networks, in which no individual is more powerful than another, we find remarkably strong effects of bipartisan social learning on eliminating polarization.”
The study was prompted after NASA released data on historic ice levels in the Arctic sea. The data was widely misinterpreted, especially by those of a conservative persuasion. It prompted the team to ponder whether social networks might help or hinder this.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group where ones political identity was revealed to the others alongside their names, a group where political affiliation was identified but people remained anonymous, and a non-political group where they interacted anonymously.
After the groups had been randomly assigned, they viewed the NASA data and were asked to forecast Arctic sea-ice levels in 2025. Their first guess was made independently, before they were shown the guesses of their peers, after which they could change their answers if they wanted.
“We all expected polarization when Republicans and Democrats were isolated,” the authors say, “but we were amazed to see how dramatically bipartisan networks could improve participants’ judgments.”
Winning friends and influencing people
In the non-political group, the influence of their peers was significant, with polarization vanishing entirely, and 85% of people correctly interpreting the data and saying that Arctic sea ice would probably decrease in future.
“The biggest surprise–and perhaps our biggest lesson–came from how fragile it all was. The improvements vanished completely with the mere suggestion of political party. All we did was put a picture of an elephant and a donkey at the bottom of a screen, and all the social learning effects disappeared. Participants’ inaccurate beliefs and high levels of polarization remained,” the authors reveal.
This is an interesting finding, and suggests that the partisan nature of politics massively hampers our ability to think coherently. What’s more, even inconspicuous elements of social media can help to identify us along party lines.
It’s inevitable that people will exhibit some kind of bias, but if we are to be as well informed as possible, it’s often crucial that we can overcome these biases and talk to people that would ordinarily be perceived as an ‘enemy’. This would tap into our natural instinct to learn from each other.
Quite how the social networks can evolve so as to provide such an environment however remains to be seen.
