Social Media, Opinion Polarization, and Social Cohesion: A Literature Review of the Impact of Digital Technology on Society

Suherlan

doi:10.61100/tacit.v3i3.408

Authors

Suherlan Universitas Subang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61100/tacit.v3i3.408

Keywords:

Social Media, Opinion Polarization, Social Cohesion, Digital Communication, Digital Literacy

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between social media, opinion polarization, and social cohesion in contemporary digital society. Using an integrative literature review, the study synthesizes theoretical perspectives and empirical findings concerning digital communication, selective exposure, echo chambers, algorithmic recommendations, and intergroup relationships. The findings indicate that social media can reinforce existing beliefs and intensify polarization, particularly when online interactions involve emotional content and strong group identities. However, exposure to opposing viewpoints does not necessarily reduce polarization, while differences in opinion do not automatically weaken social cohesion. The consequences of digital communication depend on information quality, interpersonal trust, and broader social conditions. By integrating selective exposure theory and social capital theory, this study proposes a conceptual framework linking digital communication, opinion polarization, and social cohesion. The findings highlight the importance of digital literacy, constructive dialogue, and inclusive social relationships in maintaining cohesion amid increasing diversity of public opinion.

References

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polariza-tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Campbell, D. E. (2024). Social capital in a divided America: The relationship between economic bridging and affective polarization. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 708(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162241228121

Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), Article e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

Gubbala, S., & Austin, S. (2024, February 23). Majorities in most countries surveyed say social media is good for democracy. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/23/majorities-in-most-countries-surveyed-say-social-media-is-good-for-democracy/

Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Free-lon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Moehler, D., Nyhan, B., Velasco Rivera, C., Settle, J., Thomas, D. R., ... Tucker, J. A. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science, 381(6656), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp9364

Hart, W., Richardson, K., Tortoriello, G. K., & Ayo-Vaughan, M. (2022). How social media shapes polariza-tion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1

McClain, C., Anderson, M., & Gelles-Watnick, R. (2024, June 12). How Americans navigate politics on TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/06/12/how-americans-navigate-politics-on-tiktok-x-facebook-and-instagram/

Nyhan, B., Settle, J., Thorson, E., Wojcieszak, M., Barberá, P., Chen, A. Y., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., González-Bailón, S., Guess, A. M., Kennedy, E., Kim, Y. M., Lazer, D., Malhotra, N., Moehler, D., ... Tucker, J. A. (2023). Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature, 620, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06297-w

Pew Research Center. (2024, April 29). Americans' views of technology companies. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/04/29/americans-views-of-technology-companies-2/

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.03

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Devel-opment Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559