Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2482991.2483002acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-tConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Political blend: an application designed to bring people together based on political differences

Published: 29 June 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Modern social media have increasingly helped people separate themselves by worldview. We watch television shows and follow blogs that agree with our views, and read Twitter streams of people we like. The result is often called the echo chamber. Scholars cite political echo chambers as partly to blame for the divisive and destructive U.S. political climate. In this paper, we introduce a mobile application called Political Blend designed to combat echo chambers: it brings people with different political beliefs together for a cup of coffee. Based on interviews, we discovered that people are open to this kind of application and feel it may help the broader political environment. The primary contribution of this work is evidence that people are open to meeting those different from them, even those who ideologically oppose them. In an environment dominated by applications matching based on similarities, we see that this is an important finding.

References

[1]
Adamic, L., and Glance, N. The Political blogosphere and the 2004 election: Divided they blog. In Proc. LinkKDD, ACM Press (2005), 36--43.
[2]
Baron, R. S.et al. Social corroboration and opinion extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 6 (1996), 537--560.
[3]
Baum, M., and Groeling, T. New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25 (2008), 345--365.
[4]
Bishop, B. The big sort. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008.
[5]
Garrett, R. Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication vol 14, 2 (2009), 265--285.
[6]
Gilbert, E., Bergstorm, T., and Karahalios, K. Blogs are echo chambers: Blogs are echo chambers. In Proc. HICSS 2009, Computer Society Press, 1--10.
[7]
Hoyt, A. Reagan Part II: An American. The American Experience. WGBH, 1998.
[8]
Key, V. O. The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936--1960. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966.
[9]
Kim, D., and Johnson, T., Political blog readers: Predictors of motivation for accessing politicalblogs. Telematics and Informatics, 29 (2012), 99--109.
[10]
Lee, E. (2007) Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: The role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57 (2007), 385--403.
[11]
Mackie, D. Identification effects in group polarization. journal of personality, and social psychology 50, 4 (1986), 720--728.
[12]
McPherson, M. Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (2001), 415--444.
[13]
Munson, SA, and Resnick, P. Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 457--466.
[14]
Oldenburg, R. The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Da Capo Press, 1999.
[15]
Page, S. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press, 2007.
[16]
Park, S., Kang, S., Chung, S., and Song, J. NewsCude: Delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In Proc. CHI 20'09, ACM Press (2009), 443--452.
[17]
Pariser, E. Eli Pariser: Beware online filter bubbles http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html
[18]
Price, V., and Cappella. J. Online deliberation and its influence: The electronic dialog project in campaign 2000. IT & Society, 1, 1 (2002), 303--329
[19]
Putnam, R. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster, 2000.
[20]
Rheingold, H. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. MIT Press, 1993.
[21]
Schachter, S. Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 46, 2 (1952), 190--207.
[22]
Sechrist, G. B., and Stangor, C. Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 4 (2001), 645--654.
[23]
Shultz, G. Turmoil and Triumph: My Years As Secretary of State. Scribner, 1993.
[24]
Sia, Et Al. Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. INFORMS13, 1 (2002), 70--90.
[25]
Suler, J. The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7, 3 (2004), 321--326.
[26]
Sunstein, C. Republic.com. Princeton University Press, 2001.
[27]
Sunstein, C. The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10, 2 (2002), 175--195.
[28]
Sunstien, C. Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press, 2003.
[29]
Sunstein, C. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Pres, 2007.
[30]
Sunstien, C. Going to extremes: How likeminds unite and divide. NY: Oxford university Press, 2009.
[31]
Treviranus, J., and Hickema, S. The value of the unpopular: Counteracting the popularity echo-chamber on the Web. In Proc. Science and Technology for HumanityTIC-STH 2009, Computer Society Press (2009), 603--608.
[32]
Turkle, S. Alone Together. Basic Books, 2011.
[33]
Williams, L. E., and J. A. Bargh. Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science 322, 5901 (2008), 606--607
[34]
Wojcieszak, M., and Mutz, D. Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication59, 1 (2009), 40--56.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)OtherTube: Facilitating Content Discovery and Reflection by Exchanging YouTube Recommendations with StrangersProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3502028(1-17)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
  • (2021)A systematic review on fake news research through the lens of news creation and consumption: Research efforts, challenges, and future directionsPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.026008016:12(e0260080)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2021
  • (2020)Party Politics, Values and the Design of Social Media ServicesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34151754:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2020
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Political blend: an application designed to bring people together based on political differences

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      C&T '13: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies
      June 2013
      165 pages
      ISBN:9781450321044
      DOI:10.1145/2482991
      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 ACM 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]

      Sponsors

      • ITIS: ITIS e.V.
      • EUSSET: European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 29 June 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. echo chamber
      2. matching
      3. mobile
      4. politics
      5. social

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      C&T '13
      Sponsor:
      • ITIS
      • EUSSET

      Acceptance Rates

      C&T '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 17 of 58 submissions, 29%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 183 submissions, 44%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)25
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
      Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2022)OtherTube: Facilitating Content Discovery and Reflection by Exchanging YouTube Recommendations with StrangersProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3502028(1-17)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
      • (2021)A systematic review on fake news research through the lens of news creation and consumption: Research efforts, challenges, and future directionsPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.026008016:12(e0260080)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2021
      • (2020)Party Politics, Values and the Design of Social Media ServicesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34151754:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2020
      • (2020)"Learning for the Rise of China": Exploring Uses and Gratifications of State-Owned Online PlatformProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33928354:CSCW1(1-25)Online publication date: 29-May-2020
      • (2020)A Survey on Computational PoliticsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.30349838(197379-197406)Online publication date: 2020
      • (2019)Audience and Expert Perspectives on Second Screen Engagement with Political DebatesProceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video10.1145/3317697.3323352(70-82)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2019
      • (2019)Quantifying Biases in Online Information ExposureJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2412170:3(218-229)Online publication date: 6-Feb-2019
      • (2018)Complex Mediation in the Formation of Political OpinionsProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3173574.3174210(1-15)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2018
      • (2018)Quantifying Controversy on Social MediaACM Transactions on Social Computing10.1145/31405651:1(1-27)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2018
      • (2018)Speaking their MindComputer Supported Cooperative Work10.1007/s10606-018-9316-227:3-6(293-326)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media