Political disagreements in social media can result in removing (i.e., “unfriending”) a person from one’s online network. Given that such actions could lead to the (ideological) homogenization of networks, it is pivotal to understand the psychological processes intertwined in unfriending decisions. This requires not only addressing different types of disagreements but also analyzing them in the relational context they occur. This article proposes that political disagreements leading to drastic measures such as unfriending are attributable to more deeply rooted moral dissents. Based on moral foundations theory and relationship regulation research, this work presents empirical evidence from two experiments. In both studies, subjects rated political statements (that violated different moral foundations) with regard to perceived reprehensibility and the likelihood of unfriending the source. Study 1 (N = 721) revealed that moral judgments of a political statement are moderately related to the unfriending decision. Study 2 (N = 822) replicated this finding but indicated that unfriending is less likely when the source of the morally reprehensible statement is relationally close to the unfriender and provides emotional support. This research extends unfriending literature by pointing to morality as a new dimension of analysis and offers initial evidence uncovering the psychological trade-off behind the decision of terminating digital ties. Drawing on this, our findings inform research on the homogenization of online networks by indicating that selective avoidance (in the form of politically motivated unfriending) is conditional upon the relational context and the interpersonal benefits individuals receive therein.

No abstract

The growing significance of social networking sites (SNSs) as venues for political exchanges between citizens raises questions on the consequences of their use. This pre-registered experiment ( N = 704) aexamined to what extent a gradual variation of congruence between users’ opinions and the opinion climate they encounter on SNSs affect their strength of opinion and selective exposure. No effects were found from the level of congruence on selective exposure, while exploratory analyses suggested that exposure to overly congruent opinion climates can lead to marginally stronger opinions. Building on research into political social identities which suggests polarizing effects of the latter, interaction effects of users’ ideological identities and exposure to opinions on SNS were additionally investigated. However, the present work found no indication that effects of congruence are modulated by identity salience. Taken together, findings of this study suggest that socially divisive effects of like-minded or non-like-minded opinion climates conveyed by SNS may be limited.

Social networking sites are suspected to impede the communication between members of different political camps and thereby increase network homogeneity. This homogeneity can be a result of humans’ tendency to process information in confirmatory ways—a characteristic which is also ascribed to populist citizens and those who hold conspiratorial beliefs. It is hypothesized that populist views and conspiratorial beliefs are associated with higher exposure to like-minded information within Facebook. An online survey with German Facebook users (N = 469) revealed that populist attitudes are positively associated with conspiratorial beliefs but negatively associated with homogeneity. Conspiratorial beliefs are unrelated to homogeneity. Findings are discussed in the light of extant research.

Opinion leaders (OLs) are becoming increasingly relevant on social networking sites as their visibility can help to shape their followers’ attitudes toward a variety of issues. While earlier research provided initial evidence on the effect of OLs using agent-based modeling, it remains unclear how OLs affect their network environment and, therefore, the opinion climate when: (a) they publicly hold ambivalent attitudes, and (b) they not only express support for their own stance but also discredit or ‘debunk’ the opposing side. This paper presents an agent-based model that determines the influence of OLs in social networks in relation to ambivalence and discreditation. The model draws on theoretical foundations of OLs as well as attitudinal ambivalence and was implemented using two network topologies. Results indicate that OLs have significant influence on the opinion climate and that an unequal number of OLs of different opinion camps lead to an imbalance in the opinion climate only in certain situations. Furthermore, OLs can dominate the opinion climate and turn their stance into a majority opinion more effectively when discrediting the opposing side. Ambivalent OLs, on the other hand, can contribute to greater balance in the opinion climate. These findings provide a more nuanced analysis of OLs in social networks by pointing to potential amplifications as well as boundaries of their influence. Implications are discussed with a focus on human and artificial key actors in online networks and their efficacy therein.