Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Political Deliberation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 127–150

(How) do participants in online discussion forums create ‘echo chambers’?

The inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online forum about climate change

| Erasmus University, Rotterdam
This chapter examines the proposition advanced by Sunstein (2001) and other scholars that political online forums tend to be characterized by in-group homogeneity and group polarization. The chapter adopts a process view of online forums and examines discussions within a time perspective. Five discussion lines on Climategate.nl (a skeptical Dutch online forum on climate change) are investigated. The research focuses on how participants react to the participation of dissidents and on the resulting processes of inclusion and exclusion. Climategate.nl moved in the direction of an ‘echo chamber’ gradually over time. Nevertheless, the forum was never completely homogeneous. The editors played an active role in the inclusion and exclusion of dissidents. A counter-steering moderation policy is needed to keep group polarization and homogenization within certain limits.
Keywords: argumentative community, balkanization, counter-steering moderation, echo chamber, in-group homogeneity, online discussion forums
Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.06edw
References (32)
Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001. “The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere.” Information, Communication and Society 4 (1): 615–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dessler, Andrew E., and Edward A. Parson. 2006/2010. The science and politics of global climate change: A guide to the debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2011. “In context: Giving contextualisation its rightful place in the study of argumentation.” Argumentation 25: 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, Constanza Ihnen, and Marcin Lewiński. 2010. “Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation.” In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation, ed. by Chris Reed, and Christopher W. Tindale, 115–132. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Ereaut, Gill, and Nat Segnit. 2006. Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better? London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
. 2007. Warm Words II: How the climate story is evolving and the lessons we can learn for encouraging public action. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Christian. 2006. eParticipation research: A case study on political online debate in Austria. ICT&S Center, Research Paper No. 1.Google Scholar
Garrett, R. Kelly. 2009. “Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14: 265–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Thomas Burger, trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Held, David. 2006. Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Kevin A., and John E. Hughes. 1998. Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham: Rowman, Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and John Sprague. 1995. Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Thomas J., Shannon L. Bichard, and Weiwu Zhang. 2009. “Communication communities or ‘cyberghettos’? A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15: 60–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kies, Raphaël. 2010. Promises and limits of Web-deliberation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Tetsuro, and Ken’ichi Ikeda. 2009. “Selective exposure in political web browsing. Empirical verification of ‘cyberbalkanization’ in Japan and the USA.” Information, Communication & Society 12 (6): 929–953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Koster, Willem. 2010. ‘Nowhere I could talk like that’: Togetherness and identity on online forums. Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2010. Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring in reacting critically. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Malone, Elizabeth L. 2009. Debating climate change: Pathways through argument to agreement. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
McKerrow, Raymie E. 1990. “Argument communities.” In Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. by Robert Trapp, and Janice Schuetz, 27–40. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2002. “The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere.” New Media & Society 4 (1): 9–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schkade, David, Cass R. Sunstein, and Reid Hastie. 2007. “What happened on deliberation day?” California Law Review 95: 915–940.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Going to extremes. How like minds unite and divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsaliki, Liza. 2002. “Online forums and the enlargement of public space: Research findings from a European project.” The Public 9 (2): 95–112.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Anthony G. 2000. Democracy in the digital age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, Magdalena. 2010. “‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism.” New Media & Society 12 (4): 637–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Scott, and John Street. 2007. “Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums.” New Media and Society 9 (5): 849–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Alcorn, Allison A.
2018. One Post and Two Responses. In Pedagogy Development for Teaching Online Music [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Alcorn, Allison A.
2022. One Post and Two Responses. In Research Anthology on Music Education in the Digital Era, ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.