The case I will analyze from the modern media is how social media has affected political discourse and civic involvement in the 2020 US presidential election. Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become significant political communication and engagement tools. In this regard, I will examine the limited effects theory and social media to see how political attitudes and behaviors are determined. Nevertheless, traditional media and interpersonal networks still have an influence. The rise of social media for campaigning and social commentary on the 2020 election triggered the old question about online media’s impact on society. Detractors claim social media fosters partisan echo chambers and is the source of misinformation by curtailing user exposure to opposing viewpoints. Yet, empirical data depicts a complex and sometimes contradictory picture. In the proposal, utilizing the limited effects theory, I will show how social media interacted with voter involvement and knowledge levels during the 2020 campaign. This standpoint recognizes the media’s role as one of the factors and not solely as an influencer, considering other components like political or social groups. My research findings point to the fact that partisanship was enhanced on social platforms, but interpersonal and traditional media helped to make a difference in voters’ decisions. The proposed work will deeply scrutinize social media policies of knowledge diffusion vs. polarization. When used to analyze modern-day media, theories of communications make us more aware of the effects in the face of the ever-changing information environment.
The no-effect theory states that media messages can have moderate, variable, and contingent influence on audiences, depending on selectivity, interpretation, and interpersonal networks. This is contrary to the active role of strong effect theories that suggest media is the main tool for influencing the public’s opinion. The empirical studies on social media and political networks conclude that people engage, strengthening partisan identities. Still, the impact on political knowledge and polarization must be more conclusive. Social media gradually turns into an enhancement for conventional media when it comes to information and political discussion. The limited effects model is built on the idea that media influence depends on the audience’s interpretive lens. People selectively pay attention to the messages that support their beliefs, adding only the ones that agree with their preconceptions while ignoring incongruous content. That description counter-balance the soapbox or the pipe version of the hypodermic needle and magic bullet theory of uni-directional and passive media effects per broadcast media age.
Contemporary empirical evaluations formerly tend to assume that reductionist approaches are sufficient and leave little room for variability notions. Social media engagement does reinforce partisan identities because users zoom in on the type of political discourse that best resonates with them. Nevertheless, the results sometimes need to be more consistent, as expertise and polarization may not be the major factors. Information diffusion networks are more influential. The postulate underscores the interpretive selectivity and the social context in technology’s transformation.
The selective exposure trend once observed in traditional news use is also commonly seen in contemporary social media. However, some great claims that social platforms replaced other social and mass media connections still need to be proven. These comprehensive methods (qualitative, psychological, and network-analytic) help to study complex interrelationships. Limit-effects theory still matters in contextualizing novel media today, along with its similarities to the ideological selectivity and social confirmation components from the past. The empirical study should establish media influence on civic attitudes and behaviors in terms of moderation. However, the deterministic perception of the masses needs to reflect the currently obvious and now increasingly visible dynamics of public activity and network structures, both in mass and social media.
Besides, in the 2020 presidential elections in the US, Trump and Biden utilized social media to spread campaign messages and mobilization. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter were used by the parties in the election to reach out directly to voters and rapidly disseminate information. While social media was the medium through which falsehoods and conspiracy theories that sought to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process were propagated, it also ensured the spread of such claims. Adopting the limited effects theory, societies utilize social media to reinforce strong partisan beliefs rather than to broaden political education or activity participation. Participants will consider the traditional media and interpersonal discussion when voting.
The 2020 US elections underpinned that social media have been developing into a wide political messaging and mobilization channel. Candidates saw platforms such as Facebook and Twitter as great tools to communicate with their supporters, who were usually loyal to them. Polarized appeals and calls-to-action intended for fans’ accounts led to increased campaign engagement. However, empirical evidence shows the unequal effect of digital media usage on the knowledge and behavior of the followers in the polarized political discourse. During the period of the echo chambers formed by like-minded peers, biases have been reinforced, while exposure to misinformation has produced limited effects in less polarized environments. The less politically independent voter groups relied more often on traditional media than online or other online sharing platforms.
These trends represent social media’s amplification of feeling polarization tendencies, not the drastic remaking of votersí rational calculation. Persuasive effects remain limited by identity commitments firmly entrenched in durable memberships. Without this conscious rocketing and minimum inculcation of user behavior, most people did not give in to viral claims isolated from their real world. This case displays reinforcing and limiting effects of modern media as suggested in the original Katz model – hardening group opinions besides non-acting, i.e., neutral citizens, unless the social mechanism is somehow provided. Studies contradict negative ‘filter bubble’ discourse, affirm similar concerns of segmentation, and foster future research on fractionated viewing patterns across media habits.
Social media news exposure will be considered to determine the effect on partisan identity and views on election fraud claims in users and traditional media consumers relative to non-users using a survey experiment. This study will recruit participants from diverse political spectra, collect data on their social media use for news related to politics, and assess their partisan social identity and trust in voter fraud claims. The polarization of identity theory claims that the use of social media will tend to polarize identities but will have a weak effect on misinformation beliefs compared to the interpersonal context.
The study will employ a survey-experiment method to evaluate the effects of news exposure through social networks on polarization to affective and misinformation attitudes. Across the political spectrum from the left to the right, reporters will claim to have heard of recent news on Facebook, Twitter, and mainstream media. Then, they will watch a mock news feed with all the news on alleged election irregularities, which can be found in either mainstream or partisan fringe.
The dependent measures relevant to the present study will focus on partisan social identity strength and claims of voter fraud before and after exposure to the interventions. We will determine the differences between the effects of the existing media diet through moderation analysis. Limited effects theory suggests that social media engagement may lead to identity polarization and misinformation regarding distorted cognitive interpretations of facts. Even though smaller impacts are forecasted for non-users and viewers of mainstream media, they are also not expected to remain unaffected. In addition to the experimental data, I will also use correlational data and longitudinal data. Survey and tracing data will uncover the time-dependent impact of social media on attitudinal and behavioral states leading up to, during, and after the last elections and the voter’s behavior during campaign periods and voting days. Network patterns can be seen to outline how cross-media influence affects the shared discourse environment.
The integration of the experimental, observational, and network data sources will give solid facts that will help illuminate the occurrence of bounded social media effects as the traditional media and interpersonal channels are still relevant, considering Katz’s initial theorizing. Outcomes will serve as the basis for the recommended reforms to strike a balance between Internet free expression and accountability.
This proposal has aimed to critically assess the influence of social media on political polarization and misinformation, given the limited effects theory. Social media has become the heartland of political campaigns and civic debates. Empirical studies also show that traditional media and interpersonal networks significantly affect voters’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. The study will also dig deeper into these phenomena.
Barberá, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform, 34. https://www.opolisci.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf-front/Social_Media_and_Democracy.pdf#page=54
Baumann, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Sokolov, I. M., & Starnini, M. (2020). Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Physical Review Letters, 124(4), 048301. https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.048301?casa_token=cS3-GaErriUAAAAA:-BO1iWg7C7VaSee0IxY_rPlNha_vSRn-5G0fR27Fo041O-jWWzcOStCE03SHUHDh0CJwWgHkxgKkTm0g
Boulianne, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 111-127. https://roam.macewan.ca/bitstreams/b56dc382-d7fd-4847-bcc8-d35985cbd484/download
Di Domenico, G., Sit, J., Ishizaka, A., & Nunan, D. (2021). Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 124, 329-341. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/150514/1/Fake_News_Social_Media_and_Marketing.pdf
Kitchens, B., Johnson, S. L., & Gray, P. (2020). Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption. MIS Quarterly, 44(4). https://www.darden.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/05_16371_RA_KitchensJohnsonGray%20Final_0.pdf
Rampersad, G., & Althiyabi, T. (2020). Fake news: Acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(1), 1-11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2020). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. In Studying Politics Across Media (pp. 50-74). Routledge. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 98-139. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067?casa_token=nI1Lc3lqauwAAAAA:iXknSKeeghB4s4t31WOMbItH3cYAI-z61RvydLfLcdD_W6AGsWqQ0akRKK86a0_cwtnNRTZ0iA5VxTcd6w