Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.11> Article
Research Article

Analysis of the Impact of Social Media on Social Dynamic

Zexing XieRoycemore School*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

In recent times, the influence of social media has extended beyond the digital realm and has become an integral part of people’s daily lives. This is particularly evident among young individuals, who dedicate a significant amount of time to social media platforms for communication purposes. Therefore, it is plausible that social media can be manipulated, whether maliciously or benevolently, to intentionally disseminate some alluring and deceptive news, controlling and affecting social dynamics. In this paper, the primary focus will be on exploring the various methods----such as government intervention or echo chamber---- through which social media can be manipulated to shape and influence people’s attitudes and beliefs. Additionally, the examination will extend to how these influences extend beyond the digital realm and impact individuals in their real lives. The primary research method of this paper will be to analyze other scholarly articles, trying to combine them together to explain such a phenomenon; the main subject of this paper is the interconnected sphere between social media (information initiator), the medium (information carriers), and the viewers (information recipients, social bots). Furthermore, this paper has found that people’s opinions can be swayed by two factors: exposure effect and polarization. In the former one, when individuals are exposed to instigating or deceptive news, their opinions can be influenced to a certain degree, even if they possess the ability to discern the accuracy of the information. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the existence of echo chambers, particularly in online environments. The polarization is facilitated by the echo chamber—online viewers will receive information that caters to their own beliefs—which makes their opinions more extreme. As a consequence, this can contribute to the adoption of irrational decision-making processes.

Keywords: social media; echo chamber; social bots; social dynamic; polarizations
Published: October 31, 2023
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/11/20231450
Volume: CHR Vol.11
pp. 237-242
Download PDF

References

  1. Ruby, Daniel, and About The Author Daniel Ruby Content writer with 10+ years of experience. I write across a range of subjects. “Social Media Users in the World - (2023 Demographics).” DemandSage, 7 June 2023, www.demandsage.com/social-media-users/#:~:text=Social%20media%20is%20used%20by,spot%20with%20302.25%20million%20users.
  2. Savvas Zannettou, Michael Sirivianos, Jeremy Blackburn, and Nicolas Kourtellis. 2019. The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans. J. Data and Information Quality 11, 3, Article 10 (September 2019), 37 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3309699.
  3. Saifuddin Ahmed and others, Xenophobia in the Time of a Pandemic: Social Media Use, Stereotypes, and Prejudice against Immigrants during the COVID-19 Crisis, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Volume 33, Issue 3, Autumn 2021, Pages 637–653, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edab014.
  4. Nasution, M. A. R., & Wiranto, S. (2020). PROPAGANDA ISSUES OF RACISM THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA TO TRIGGER SOCIAL VIOLENCE IN PAPUA AND WEST PAPUA IN 2019. In Jurnal Pertahanan: Media Informasi ttg Kajian & Strategi Pertahanan yang Mengedepankan Identity, Nasionalism & Integrity (Vol. 6, Issue 2, p. 212). Indonesia Defense University. https://doi.org/10.33172/jp.v6i2.857.
  5. Geissler, D., Bär, D., Pröllochs, N., & Feuerriegel, S. (2022). Russian propaganda on social media during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine (Version 4). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2211.04154.
  6. Zhang M, Qi X, Chen Z, Liu J. Social Bots’ Involvement in the COVID-19 Vaccine Discussions on Twitter. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(3):1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031651.
  7. Naneva, S., Sarda Gou, M., Webb, T.L. et al. A Systematic Review of Attitudes, Anxiety, Acceptance, and Trust Towards Social Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 1179–1201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4.
  8. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465.
  9. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation.
  10. Quattrociocchi, Walter and Scala, Antonio and Sunstein, Cass R., Echo Chambers on Facebook (June 13, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2795110.
  11. Cota, W., Ferreira, S.C., Pastor-Satorras, R. et al. Quantifying echo chamber effects in information spreading over political communication networks. EPJ Data Sci. 8, 35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0213-.
  12. Barry, D., Mcintire, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2021, January 9). “our president wants US here”: The mob that stormed the Capitol. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html.
  13. Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. In Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 45, Issue 3, pp. 188–206). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070.
  14. Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C., & Sternisko, A. (2021). How social media shapes polarization. In Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Vol. 25, Issue 11, pp. 913–916). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013.