research-article

(Re)Design to Mitigate Political Polarization: Reflecting Habermas' ideal communication space in the United States of America and Finland

Authors:

Matti Nelimarkka,

Jean Philippe Rancy,

Jennifer Grygiel,

Bryan SemaanAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 3, Issue CSCW

Article No.: 141, Pages 1 - 25

https://doi.org/10.1145/3359243

Published: 07 November 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Social Media platforms are increasingly being used for political activities and communication, and research suggests that social media design and use is contributing to the polarization of the public sphere. This study draws on Habermas' ideals concerning deliberative democracy to explore if novel interface designs that diversify information sources through content recommendation, can decrease polarization. Through a design-probe interview approach and insights generated from 19 political and citizen experts in Finland and the United States, we found that our deliberative design can lead to depolarization, while creating additional complexity through which users question content and information. We discuss the need to move beyond naive content recommendation, and user interface level changes, in order to work towards a depolarized public sphere.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (cscw141aux.zip)

High-resolution versions of design probes. See Figure 1 for details.

Download
728.71 KB

References

[1]

Lada A Adamic and Natalie Glance. 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery. 36--43.

Digital Library

[2]

Steffen Albrecht. 2006. Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet. Information, Community and Society 9, 1 (2006), 62--82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180500519548

[3]

James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: Crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1 (2013), 11--35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276

[4]

Lars Backstrom, Paolo Boldi, Marco Rosa, Johan Ugander, and Sebastiano Vigna. 2012. Four degrees of separation. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. ACM, 33--42.

Digital Library

[5]

Y. M. Baek, M. Wojcieszak, and M. X. Delli Carpini. 2011. Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society 14, 3 (sep 2011), 363--383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444811413191

[6]

Christopher Bail, Lisa Argyle, Taylor Brown, John Bumpus, Haohan Chen, M.B. Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to opposing views can increase political polarization: evidence from a large-scale field experiment on social media. SocArXiv XXX, Xx (2018), 1--6. http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4YGUX

[7]

E. Bakshy, S. Messing, and L. A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (jun 2015), 1130--1132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160

[8]

Pablo Barberá, John T. Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker, and Richard Bonneau. 2015. Tweeting From Left to Right. Psychological Science 26, 10 (10 2015), 1531--1542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620

[9]

Dominik Batorski and Ilona Grzywi'nska. 2018. Three dimensions of the public sphere on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society 21, 3 (mar 2018), 356--374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281329

[10]

Åsa Bengtsson, Kasper Hansen, Ólafur Þ Haroarson, Hanne Marthe Narud, and Henrik Oscarsson. 2013. The Nordic voter: myths of exceptionalism. Ecpr Press.

[11]

Grant Blank. 2013. Who Creates Content? Information, Communication & Society 16, 4 (may 2013), 590--612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.777758

[12]

Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design fiction. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 703--712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098

Digital Library

[13]

Kirsten Boehner and Carl DiSalvo. 2016. Data, Design and Civics: An Exploratory Study of Civic Tech. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2970--2981. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858326

Digital Library

[14]

John Boswell. 2013. Why and How Narrative Matters in Deliberative Systems. Political Studies 61, 3 (oct 2013), 620--636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467--9248.2012.00987.x

[15]

Peter Bro and Filip Wallberg. 2015. Gatekeeping in a digital era: Principles, practices and technological platforms. Journalism Practice 9, 1 (2015), 92--105.

[16]

Barry Brown, Julian Bleecker, Marco D'Adamo, Pedro Ferreira, Joakim Formo, Mareike Glöss, Maria Holm, Kristina Höök, Eva-Carin Banka Johnson, Emil Kaburuan, and others. 2016. The IKEA Catalogue: Design fiction in academic and industrial collaborations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM, 335--344.

Digital Library

[17]

Axel Bruns and Tim Highfield. 2013. Political Networks on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society 16, 5 (jun 2013), 667--691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782328

[18]

Manuel Castells and Pekka Himanen. 2002. The information society and the welfare state: The Finnish model. Number 250. Oxford University Press on Demand.

[19]

Pew Research Center. 2017. The partisan divide on political values grows even wider. (2017).

[20]

Sidharth Chhabra and Paul Resnick. 2012. Cubethat: news article recommender. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 295--296.

Digital Library

[21]

D Coetzee, Seongtaek Lim, Armando Fox, Bjorn Hartmann, and Marti A. Hearst. 2015. Structuring Interactions for Large-Scale Synchronous Peer Learning. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '15. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1139--1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675251

[22]

Elsa Costa e Silva. 2014. Beyond links: Understanding meaning and control in political blogs. New Media & Society (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538633

[23]

Lincoln Dahlberg. 2001. Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4 (2001), 615--633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180110097030

[24]

Lincoln Dahlberg. 2001. The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring The Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere. Information, Communication & Society 4, 4 (jan 2001), 615--633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691180110097030

[25]

Lincoln Dahlberg. 2011. Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four 'positions'. New Media & Society 13, 6 (feb 2011), 855--872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569

[26]

Russell J Dalton. 2008. The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies 41, 7 (2008), 899--920.

[27]

Marcus Daniel. 2010. Scandal & civility: journalism and the birth of American democracy. Oxford University Press.

[28]

John Dewey. 2012. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. Pennsylvania State University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/j.ctt7v1gh

[29]

Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM 59, 2 (2016), 56--62.

Digital Library

[30]

Carl DiSalvo. 2012. Adversarial Design as Inquiry and Practice. Mit Press.

[31]

John S Dryzek. 2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford University Press, New York.

[32]

Elizabeth Dubois and Grant Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information Communication and Society 21, 5 (2018), 729--745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656

[33]

John H. Evans. 2003. Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized?-An Update. Social Science Quarterly 84, 1 (2003), 71--90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42955856

[34]

Matthew Feinberg, Alexa M Tullett, Zachary Mensch, William Hart, and Sara Gottlieb. 2017. The political reference point: How geography shapes political identity. PloS one 12, 2 (2017), e0171497.

[35]

Morris P Fiorina and Samuel J Abrams. 2008. Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008), 563--588.

[36]

Richard Fletcher and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society 20, 7 (jul 2018), 2450--2468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170

[37]

BJ Fogg. 2009. A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive '09 (2009), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999

Digital Library

[38]

Deen Freelon. 2015. Discourse architecture, ideology, and democratic norms in online political discussion. New Media & Society 17, 5 (may 2015), 772--791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444813513259

[39]

Dennis Friess and Christiane Eilders. 2015. A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research. Policy & Internet 7, 3 (sep 2015), 319--339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95

[40]

Mingkun Gao, Hyo Jin Do, and Wai-Tat Fu. 2018. Burst Your Bubble! An Intelligent System for Improving Awareness of Diverse Social Opinions. 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2018), 371--383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3172944.3172970

Digital Library

[41]

Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2016. Quantifying Controversy in Social Media. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM '16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 33--42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2835776.2835792

Digital Library

[42]

Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2017. Reducing Controversy by Connecting Opposing Views. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM '17. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 81--90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3018661.3018703

Digital Library

[43]

Matthew Gentzkow, Jesse M Shapiro, and Michael Sinkinson. 2014. Competition and ideological diversity: Historical evidence from us newspapers. American Economic Review 104, 10 (2014), 3073--3114.

[44]

J. Gerhards and M. S. Schafer. 2010. Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society 12, 1 (jan 2010), 143--160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341444

[45]

Homero Gil de Zú n iga, Brian Weeks, and Alberto Ardè vol-Abreu. 2017. Effects of the News-Finds-Me Perception in Communication: Social Media Use Implications for News Seeking and Learning About Politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, 3 (may 2017), 105--123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12185

[46]

Eric Gilbert, Tony Bergstrom, and Karrie Karahalios. 2009. Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 1--10.

[47]

Tarleton Gillespie. 2012. The relevance of algorithms. In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. 167--194.

[48]

Erving Goffman. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Butler, Bodies that Matter (1959).

[49]

Paul Goren. 2005. Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science 49, 4 (2005), 881--896.

[50]

Mark S Granovetter. 1977. The strength of weak ties. In Social networks. Elsevier, 347--367.

[51]

K. Greuling and T. Kilian. 2013. Motives for active participation in political blogs: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of eight German blogs. Social Science Computer Review (oct 2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439313508611

[52]

Jennifer Grygiel and Nina Brown. 2019. Are social media companies motivated to be good corporate citizens? Examination of the connection between corporate social responsibility and social media safety. Telecommunications Policy 43, 5 (2019), 445--460.

Digital Library

[53]

Lei Guo, Jacob A. Rohde, and H. Denis Wu. 2018. Who is responsible for Twitter's echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 U.S. election networks. Information, Communication & Society 0, 0 (2018), 1--18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793

[54]

Jü rgen Habermas. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Polity Press.

[55]

Jonathan Haidt. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.

[56]

Daniel C Hallin and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge university press.

[57]

Natali Helberger, Kari Karppinen, and Lucia D'Acunto. 2018. Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, Communication & Society 21, 2 (feb 2018), 191--207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900

[58]

David Held. 2006. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

[59]

John B Horrigan, Kelly Garrett, and Paul Resnick. 2004. The Internet and democratic debate. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

[60]

Juha V. A. Itkonen. 2015. Social ties and concern for global warming. Climatic Change 132, 2 (01 Sep 2015), 173--192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015--1424-0

[61]

Ole Sejer Iversen, Kim Halskov, and Tuck Wah Leong. 2010. Rekindling values in participatory design. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC '10) (2010), 91--100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900455

Digital Library

[62]

Susan Jacobson, Eunyoung Myung, and Steven L Johnson. 2016. Open media or echo chamber: the use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook Pages of partisan news organizations. Information, Communication & Society 19, 7 (jul 2016), 875--891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1064461

[63]

Jakob Linaa Jensen. 2003. Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians. Information Polity 8, 1&2 (2003), 29--47. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/a1q90erc4576k3yn/

Digital Library

[64]

Carter Jernigan and Behram FT Mistree. 2009. Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday 14, 10 (2009).

[65]

Andreas Jungherr. 2016. Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13, 1 (jan 2016), 72--91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401

[66]

Ulrike Klinger and Jakob Svensson. 2018. The end of media logics? On algorithms and agency. New Media and Society (2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444818779750

[67]

Jim A Kuypers. 2002. Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues. Greenwood Publishing Group.

[68]

Salla-Maaria Laaksonen and Matti Nelimarkka. 2018. Omat ja muiden aiheet: Laskennallinen analyysi vaalijulkisuuden teemoista ja aiheomistajuudesta. Politiikka 60, 2 (2018), 132--147.

[69]

Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio, and Sakari Tamminen. 2011. We're in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 3217--3226.

Digital Library

[70]

Geoffrey C Layman, Thomas M Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9 (2006), 83--110.

[71]

Daniel J. Lee and Rachel A. Schutte. 2017. Elite-level issue dynamics: Assessing perspectives on party issue change. Party Politics 23, 3 (2017), 205--219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068815588258

[72]

Arend Lijphart, Don Aitkin, and others. 1994. Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945--1990. Oxford University Press.

[73]

Darren G. Lilleker, Karolina Koc-Michalska, Eva Johanna Schweitzer, Michal Jacunski, Nigel Jackson, and Thierry Vedel. 2011. Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication 26, 3 (sep 2011), 195--213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323111416182

[74]

Deborah Lupton. 2018. Towards design sociology. Sociology Compass 12, 1 (2018), 1--11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12546

[75]

Alice E Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society 13, 1 (2011), 114--133.

[76]

Alice E Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2014. Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New media & society 16, 7 (2014), 1051--1067.

[77]

Ariadna Matamoros-Ferná ndez. 2017. Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information Communication and Society 20, 6 (2017), 930--946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

[78]

Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology 27, 1 (2001), 415--444.

[79]

Sharon Meraz. 2015. Quantifying Partisan Selective Exposure Through Network Text Analysis of Elite Political Blog Networks During the U.S. 2012 Presidential Election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 12, 1 (jan 2015), 37--53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.974119

[80]

Solomon Messing and Sean J. Westwood. 2014. Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online. Communication Research 41, 8 (2014), 1042--1063. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406

[81]

Jonathan Scott Morgan, Cliff Lampe, and Muhammad Zubair Shafiq. 2013. Is news sharing on Twitter ideologically biased?. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '13. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441877

Digital Library

[82]

Alison Mountz. 2009. The Other. In Key Concepts in Political Geography, Carolyn Gallaher, Carl T. Dahlman, Mary Gilmartin, Alison Mountz, and Peter Shirlow (Eds.). SAGE, New York, 328--338.

[83]

George Moyser. 2006. Elite Interviewing. In The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods, Victor Jupp (Ed.). London, 85--86. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020116

[84]

Michael J Muller. 2003. Participatory design: the third space in HCI. Human-computer interaction: Development process 4235 (2003), 165--185.

[85]

Sean A Munson, Stephanie Y Lee, and Paul Resnick. 2013. Encouraging Reading of Diverse Political Viewpoints with a Browser Widget. In Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 419--428.

[86]

Sean A. Munson and Paul Resnick. 2010. Presenting diverse political opinions. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '10. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1457--1466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753543

[87]

Sean A Munson, Daniel Xiaodan Zhou, and Paul Resnick. 2009. Designing interfaces for presentation of opinion diversity. Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems CHI EA 09 (2009), 3667--3672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520552

Digital Library

[88]

Diana C. Mutz. 2008. Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory? Annual Review of Political Science 11, 1 (jun 2008), 521--538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070308

[89]

Matti Nelimarkka, Salla-Maaria Laaksonen, and Bryan Semaan. 2018. Social Media Is Polarized, Social Media Is Polarized. In Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018 - DIS '18. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 957--970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196764

Digital Library

[90]

Matti Nelimarkka, Antti Salovaara, Bryan Semaan, and Giulio Jacucci. 2017. Theory-Driven Collocated CMC. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 4534--4547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025885

Digital Library

[91]

Daniel Neyland and Norma Mö llers. 2016. Algorithmic IF łdots THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power. Information, Communication & Society 4462, May (mar 2016), 1--18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1156141

[92]

Helen Nissenbaum. 2005. Values in Technical Design. In Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, Carl Mitcham (Ed.). MacMillan, New York, lxvi--lxx.

[93]

Marije Nouwen, Maarten Van Mechelen, and Bieke Zaman. 2015. A value sensitive design approach to parental software for young children. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '15 (2015), 363--366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771917

Digital Library

[94]

Antti Oulasvirta and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. HCI Research as Problem-Solving. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 4956--4967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858283

Digital Library

[95]

Ian O'Flynn and Gaurav Sood. 2014. What would Dahl say? An appraisal of the democratic credentials of deliberative polls and other mini-publics. In Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. ECPR Press, Colchester, 41--58.

[96]

Zizi Papacharissi. 2004. Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6, 2 (apr 2004), 259--283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444

[97]

Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.

Digital Library

[98]

Souneil Park, Seungwoo Kang, Sangyoung Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2009. NewsCube: delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 443--452.

Digital Library

[99]

Nathaniel Persily. 2017. The 2016 US Election: Can democracy survive the internet? Journal of democracy 28, 2 (2017), 63--76.

[100]

James Pierce and Carl DiSalvo. 2018. Addressing Network Anxieties with Alternative Design Metaphors. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 549, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174123

Digital Library

[101]

James Pierce, Phoebe Sengers, Tad Hirsch, Tom Jenkins, William Gaver, and Carl DiSalvo. 2015. Expanding and Refining Design and Criticality in HCI. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (2015), 2083--2092. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702438

Digital Library

[102]

Markus Prior. 2013. Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16 (2013), 101--127.

[103]

Joshua Robison and Kevin J Mullinix. 2016. Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication 33, 2 (2016), 261--282.

[104]

Bryan Semaan, Heather Faucett, Scott Robertson, Misa Maruyama, and Sara Douglas. 2015. Navigating Imagined Audiences: Motivations for Participating in the Online Public Sphere. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '15 (2015), 1158--1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675187

Digital Library

[105]

Bryan C. Semaan, Scott P Robertson, Sara Douglas, and Misa Maruyama. 2014. Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing - CSCW '14. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1409--1421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531605

Digital Library

[106]

Suvi Silfverberg, Lassi A. Liikkanen, and Airi Lampinen. 2011. "I'll press play, but I won't listen". In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '11. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 207---216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958855

Digital Library

[107]

David Silverman. 2000. Doing Qualitative Research. A practical handbook. SAGE Publications, London.

[108]

Michael Warren Skirpan, Jacqueline Cameron, and Tom Yeh. 2018. More Than a Show: Using Personalized Immersive Theater to Educate and Engage the Public in Technology Ethics. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 464, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174038

Digital Library

[109]

Mel Stanfill. 2015. The interface as discourse: The production of norms through web design. New Media & Society 17, 7 (aug 2015), 1059--1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444814520873

[110]

Marco R Steenbergen, Andre B"a chtigerb, Markus Spö rndlib, and Jurg Steine. 2003. Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics 1, 1 (2003), 21--48.

[111]

Erik Stolterman and Mikael Wiberg. 2010. Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research. Human-Computer Interaction 25, 2 (2010), 95--118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370020903586696

[112]

Kim Strandberg and Kimmo Grö nlund. 2012. Online Deliberation and Its Outcome-Evidence from the Virtual Polity Experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9, 2 (apr 2012), 167--184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2011.637709

[113]

Anselm Strauss and Juliet M Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.

[114]

Jennifer Stromer-Galley. 2003. Diversity of political conversation on the Internet: Users' perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8, 3 (2003), JCMC836.

[115]

Jennifer Stromer-Galley and Peter Muhlberger. 2009. Agreement and Disagreement in Group Deliberation: Effects on Deliberation Satisfaction, Future Engagement, and Decision Legitimacy. Political Communication 26, 2 (2009), 173--192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600902850775

[116]

Christian Sturm, Alice Oh, Sebastian Linxen, Jose Abdelnour Nocera, Susan Dray, and Katharina Reinecke. 2015. How WEIRD is HCI?: extending HCI principles to other countries and cultures. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2425--2428.

Digital Library

[117]

Cass R Sunstein. 2001. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press., New Jersey.

[118]

Harry C Triandis, Robert Bontempo, Marcelo J Villareal, Masaaki Asai, and Nydia Lucca. 1988. Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 54, 2 (1988), 323.

[119]

Cathy Urquhart and Walter Fernandez. 2013. Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal of Information Technology 28, 3 (2013), 224--236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.34

[120]

Augusto Valeriani and Royal Holloway. 2015. Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom Cristian Vaccari. (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616223

[121]

Kari Mikko Vesala and Teemu Rantanen. 2007. Laadullinen asennetutkimus: l"a htö kohtia, periaatteita, mahdollisuuksia. In Argumentaatio ja tulkinta : laadullisen asennetutkimuksen l"a hestymistapa, Kari Mikko Vesala and Teemu Rantanen (Eds.). Gaudeamus, Helsinki, 11--61.

[122]

Jussi Westinen. 2016. Puoluevalinta Suomessa 2000-luvulla. In Poliittisen osallistumisen eriytyminen. Eduskuntavaalitutkimus., Kimmo Grönlund and Hanna Wass (Eds.). Ministry of Justice, Finland. English translation: Choosing parties in Finland in the 21st century.

[123]

David Manning White. 1950. The "gate keeper": A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Bulletin 27, 4 (1950), 383--390.

[124]

Langdon Winner. 1985. Do artifacts have politics? In The social shaping of technology, Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (Eds.). Open University Press, Buckingham, 26--38.

[125]

Jung Hwan Yang, Hernando Rojas, Magdalena Wojcieszak, Toril Aalberg, Sharon Coen, James Curran, Kaori Hayashi, Shanto Iyengar, Paul K. Jones, Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Stylianos Papathanassopoulos, June Woong Rhee, David Rowe, Stuart Soroka, and Rodney Tiffen. 2016. Why Are "Others" So Polarized? Perceived Political Polarization and Media Use in 10 Countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21, 5 (2016), 349--367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12166

Digital Library

[126]

Amy X Zhang and Scott Counts. 2015. Modeling Ideology and Predicting Policy Change with Social Media. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2603--2612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702193

Digital Library

[127]

W. Zhang. 2015. Perceived Procedural Fairness in Deliberation: Predictors and Effects. Communication Research 42, 3 (2015), 345--364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650212469544

Cited By

Das DGandhi DSemaan B(2024)Reimagining Communities through Transnational Bengali Decolonial Discourse with YouTube Content CreatorsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869008:CSCW2(1-36)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686900
Jia CLam MMai MHancock JBernstein M(2024)Embedding Democratic Values into Social Media AIs via Societal Objective FunctionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36410028:CSCW1(1-36)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641002
Kim HLee JJang JKim J(2024)ReSPect: Enabling Active and Scalable Responses to Networked Online HarassmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373948:CSCW1(1-30)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637394
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

(Re)Design to Mitigate Political Polarization: Reflecting Habermas' ideal communication space in the United States of America and Finland
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing
  2. Interaction design
    1. Interaction design process and methods

Recommendations

Partisan alignments and political polarization online: a computational approach to understanding the french and US presidential elections
PLEAD '13: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Politics, elections and data

With the advent of Twitter and the ability to collect large datasets from this technology, researchers have the opportunity to analyze political participation in cross-national electoral contexts. This paper capitalizes on this capability to examine ...
Citizens versus the Government or Citizens with the Government: a Tale of Two e-Participation Portals in One City - a Case Study of St. Petersburg, Russia
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

E-participation is a two-way process, comprising government-led projects and citizens' initiatives. Although the cooperation between them is the best outcome, they usually compete for popularity and efficiency, representing conflicting views on ...
Ideological motives, digital divides, and political polarization: How do political party preference and values correspond with the political use of social media?
Highlights
- Paper examines how Finnish party supporters engage in political discussion on social media.
Abstract
Social media provides new platforms for political participation and ideological categorization. However, little research has been done on how party preference is related to politically active social media use. We begin with a ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 3, Issue CSCW

November 2019

5026 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3371885

Editors:
Airi Lampinen
Stockholm University, Sweden
,
Darren Gergle
Northwestern University, USA
,
David A. Shamma
FXPAL, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 November 2019

Published in PACMHCI Volume 3, Issue CSCW

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Koneen Säätiö
Academy of Finland

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

25
Total Citations
View Citations
774
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)116
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Das DGandhi DSemaan B(2024)Reimagining Communities through Transnational Bengali Decolonial Discourse with YouTube Content CreatorsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869008:CSCW2(1-36)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686900
Jia CLam MMai MHancock JBernstein M(2024)Embedding Democratic Values into Social Media AIs via Societal Objective FunctionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36410028:CSCW1(1-36)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641002
Kim HLee JJang JKim J(2024)ReSPect: Enabling Active and Scalable Responses to Networked Online HarassmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373948:CSCW1(1-30)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637394
Jeon YKim JPark SKo YRyu SKim SHan K(2024)HearHere: Mitigating Echo Chambers in News Consumption through an AI-based Web SystemProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373408:CSCW1(1-34)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637340
Tanprasert TFels SSinnamon LYoon D(2024)Debate Chatbots to Facilitate Critical Thinking on YouTube: Social Identity and Conversational Style Make A DifferenceProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642513(1-24)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642513
Longo A(2024)(Re)Designing the Public Sphere? Doing Political Theory After the Empirical TurnPhilosophy & Technology10.1007/s13347-024-00788-y37:3Online publication date: 5-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00788-y
Rajadesingan AChoo DZhang JInakage MBudak CResnick P(2023)GuesSync!: An Online Casual Game To Reduce Affective PolarizationProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36101907:CSCW2(1-33)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3610190
Ko YRyu SHan SJeon YKim JPark SHan KTong HKim S(2023)KHAN: Knowledge-Aware Hierarchical Attention Networks for Accurate Political Stance PredictionProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202310.1145/3543507.3583300(1572-1583)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543507.3583300
Pimentel AMotta CCorreia ASchneider D(2023)Agenda of Solutions to Mitigate the Challenge of Polarization of Extreme Positions in Social Media Environments2023 26th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)10.1109/CSCWD57460.2023.10152674(1944-1949)Online publication date: 24-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD57460.2023.10152674
Jain TMasand AChauhan S(2022)Depression Identification Through Tweet ClustersInternational Journal of Software Innovation10.4018/IJSI.29791610:1(1-14)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/IJSI.297916
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents