Politics: Web 2.0 - Facebook and Clustering of Ideological Types
By Michael Turk, 04/17/2008 - 8:10am

(cross posted at KungFuQuip.com)

Gaines & Sendak: The Friend of My Friend is My Friend? Ideological Clustering on Facebook

Session 1 of the Politics: Web 2.0 Conference brings us to an examination of Facebook and clustering of ideological types and research done by Brian Gaines and Jeff Mondak at the University of Illinois. One of the fears about the growing rise of the Internet is it fosters a cognitive dissonance selective exposure (sorry, brain synapse misfire) and allows individuals to ignore information with which they disagree. It also allows them to congregate together with only those who align with their views and self-reinforce.

Gaines and Mondak looked at whether friend networks had commonality of belief systems or whether there were significant variations. One interesting aspect they explored was whether the urge to add more friends - ths raising their social capital - would lead people to connecting with more divergent networks and therefore exposing themselves to more diverse opinions.

One interesting slide in the presentation covered the ideology by Big Ten Schools. It's on page 26 of the paper linked above (I'll try to go back and add a grab later. What's interesting in that slide is the fact that the number of people who chose "very liberal" and "very conservative" remain largely unchanged across universities (as do the number of moderates, though with greater swing). Micah's take is that is probably consistent with the percentage of American's who are firmly ensconced in the wings of the two parties.

Only the number of "liberal" and "conservative" identifiers change dramatically with Northwestern proving to be the most liberal and Purdue the most conservative.

Interestingly, the study found that conservatives are slightly more likely than liberals to surround themselves with other conservatives. The change was fairly minor and when only "Top Friends" were explored, there was no indication that Top Friends were more alike politically.

One interesting notion they introduced is the idea of "the stealth conservative". Essentially the theory is (especially among college students) that conservatives would not want to out themselves and be somehow denigrated as conservatives by their more liberal friends. Since liberalism is more prevalent at college campuses, these conservatives may otherwise go uncounted. It's an interesting concept, but one that may become less and less meaningful as Facebook's population grows older.

I asked during Q&A whether they had considered looking only at those who had added a political application or otherwise indicated a level of political activism to see if they were more likely to select only friends with whom they share political beliefs. They indicated they had begun with a purely random sample, but have considered going back to do some subsampling based on political involvement (both online and to the extent possible off) and other factors.

The paper is an interesting read if you're interested in the study of selective exposure and the web.

novice approach

When reading the following in the document "In some ways, the Facebook Election Pulse is even more flawed as a forecasting
device, insofar as users need not be old enough to vote, nor be eligible voters in the districts of the candidates they support." I am left stunned by politic ignorance of such writers. You do not have to vote for a candidate to give them support. You can volunteer to work them or give them money. The report however is right in saying basically anyone born before 1980 thinks facebook is just another website.

As someone born a decade before 1980...

I don't know that you can generalize that way. I know a lot of people age 28 and above that get Facebook, and more imprtantly recognize it's potential impact as a social driver.

You have a valid point that support for candidates is not age restricted, though.

They raised the Facebook Pulse in the context that its results were not necessarily indicative of actual voting outcomes. In that way, the quote makes sense. It's possible that those who can't vote would skew the results. I don't remember that comment from the paper, so I'm not sure of the context. It seems to support the same argument.

I think the Pulse was useful in the same way that the MySpace/Facebook counts on this site are useful. They give you a view of a small subset of participants, but probably should not be extrapolated to make a larger point.

facebook and age groups

That the "appeal of Facebook" may be elusive to those before 1980 may be more the result of how it entered the world than of its intrinsic value to users of all ages. It was after all introduced through colleges first, and not many people of the older generation were attending classes at that time. Following the spread of Facebook will be like following the spread of a rumor.

I definitely agree with Michael - you can't generalize about the users of Facebook. I was first invited onto Facebook by my 78 year old father. I'm almost 53. I don't think I will ever be one concerned about my number of friends on Facebook, but I do use it to connect, share pictures, post sites, etc. When I post my views I know that I am sharing them with the full political spectrum - but not the huge audience that my children share with .....(except if they share what I share of course).

Some of the people in my age group have told me that they have found the exposure to different points of view is refreshing.......they are learning about the younger generation's point of view simply by having "friends" who are sons, daughters, neices, nephews, and the kid next door that has grown up and moved to London. A lot isn't gleaned by directly written information, but more about what groups and causes are joined. This exposure to other perspectives is a good thing.

http://bookandgarden.blogspot.com/



© 2009 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |