In the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, Stanford University conducted a series of studies to probe the extent to which Facebook and its counterpart, Instagram, contribute to America’s political polarization.
Over 35,000 users of both platforms participated in the research, abstaining from social media activity in the run-up to Election Day. This pause provided researchers with valuable insights into any shifts in political attitudes among participants. If significant changes occurred, it would lend weight to the argument that Facebook, Instagram, and social media in general exacerbate societal divisions.
Minimal impact
The results of this unprecedented social media hiatus are in: refraining from Facebook and Instagram usage had minimal impact on individuals’ political stances, their perceptions of opposing parties, or their beliefs regarding election integrity.
However, the study did unearth noteworthy observations regarding Facebook’s influence on users’ perception of current events. Participants who abstained from Facebook displayed a decreased ability to answer news-related quiz questions accurately. Yet, paradoxically, they were also less susceptible to widespread misinformation, suggesting that the platform serves as a conduit for both authentic news and falsehoods.
These findings align with broader research into the influence of Facebook and Instagram during the 2020 election cycle, which found that alterations in news feed algorithms and restrictions on post sharing failed to mitigate polarization or alter beliefs regarding election integrity.
Collectively, these studies challenge the prevailing narrative that Facebook and Instagram wield substantial influence over political attitudes during election periods in the United States.
Key takeaways
The study’s revelation that Facebook and Instagram didn’t sway people’s political beliefs or attitudes toward electoral fraud in 2020 is intriguing, especially when compared to previous research. In an earlier, smaller-scale investigation involving Facebook users abstaining from the platform for a month before the 2018 midterms, evidence surfaced indicating that Facebook does indeed contribute to polarization.
One plausible explanation for this disparity is that during a presidential election, individuals may be more cognizant of political matters, rendering Facebook and Instagram’s impact negligible on their beliefs and attitudes. However, in other electoral contexts where information about candidates or issues isn’t as prominent, social media platforms might wield greater influence over people’s perspectives.
“Even though Facebook and Instagram did not contribute to polarization in the runup to the 2020 election, it’s possible that they are helping to widen political divides in other contexts where people’s views are less entrenched,” the authors conclude.
