Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Social Networks Cellphones Politics

Study Finds Growing Social Circles May Fuel Polarization (phys.org) 67

Posted by BeauHD from the ideological-bubbles dept.
A new study from the Complexity Science Hub Vienna finds that as people's close social circles expanded from two to five friends around the rise of social media (2008-2010), polarization in society spiked. "The connection between these two developments could provide a fundamental explanation for why societies around the world are increasingly fragmenting into ideological bubbles," reports Phys.org. From the report: The researchers' findings confirm that increasing polarization is not merely perceived -- it is measurable and objectively occurring. "And this increase happened suddenly, between 2008 and 2010," says [says Stefan Thurner from the Complexity Science Hub (CSH)]. The question remained: what caused it? [...] The sharp rise in both polarization and the number of close friends occurred between 2008 and 2010 -- precisely when social media platforms and smartphones first achieved widespread adoption. This technological shift may have fundamentally changed how people connect with each other, indirectly promoting polarization.

"Democracy depends on all parts of society being involved in decision-making, which requires that everyone be able to communicate with each other. But when groups can no longer talk to each other, this democratic process breaks down," emphasizes Stefan Thurner. Tolerance plays a central role. "If I have two friends, I do everything I can to keep them -- I am very tolerant towards them. But if I have five and things become difficult with one of them, it's easier to end that friendship because I still have 'backups.' I no longer need to be as tolerant," explains Thurner.

What disappears as a result is a societal baseline of tolerance -- a development that could contribute to the long-term erosion of democratic structures. To prevent societies from increasingly fragmenting, Thurner emphasizes the importance of learning early how to engage with different opinions and actively cultivating tolerance. The research was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Finds Growing Social Circles May Fuel Polarization More

Study Finds Growing Social Circles May Fuel Polarization

Comments Filter:

  • But I thougth there was a loneliness epidemic (Score:3)

    by ebunga ( 95613 ) on Monday October 27, 2025 @09:40PM (#65754700)

    I'm confused, and angry, and not voting for whatever politician you like.

    • Re:But I thougth there was a loneliness epidemic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Monday October 27, 2025 @11:11PM (#65754784) Homepage

      It's true. Social circles *online* are not the same as social circles IRL. It's possible to have "close social circles" and still be lonely.

      • I was actually wondering how many close friends people typically had before social media.

        I have never done social media and was around LONG before prevalence of SM and even the internet itself.

        I''ve pretty much always had the same group of about 10-11 ( 1 passed a couple years ago )....very close friends I stay in touch with on a very regular basis. I live around many of them and those outside of my state...I"m on group text chats, and we *GASP* actually call each other and talk too!!

        I've never found la

        • Those are good questions. I think people started withdrawing from real-life friendships before Social Media, as TV and air conditioning gave people excuses to stay inside and not socialize.

          It seems most people in America have fewer than 5 close friends. https://www.pewresearch.org/sh... [pewresearch.org]. Younger people seem to have fewer close friends.

      • Which is one of the things for which this theory must be criticized. There are no "close social circles" here on /.. They do not exist on Facebook or any other social media site. Those are limited to people you have physical contact with. People with whom you are acquainted online are just that, acquaintances. People whose words we see, but whose personhood we do not.

    • "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" (Network 1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] I believe this sort of performative rage has become ritualized and social media fuels it. I don't know what the technical solution to that could be nor what the incentive would be to drive it. (Admittedly I also think it's a great scene).

  • I can't help but to think that history is repeating, and that few learned any lessons from the hardships.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      Since WWII governments have worked tirelessly to divide the populations of the West so we'd fight each other rather than oppose them. Now they're whining about "unity" because they've realized that by dividing us up so badly they've destroyed the cohesion that's required to maintain a first-world society and raise an army to fight whatever enemy-de-jour they may want us to fight.

      And they're also shocked that the millions of people they've imported would rather vote for one of their own than for established

      • Re:A house divided cannot stand... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rta ( 559125 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2025 @01:40AM (#65754900)

        Since WWII governments have worked tirelessly to divide the populations of the West so we'd fight each other rather than oppose them. Now they're whining about "unity" ...

        This seems contrary to what i recall. The cold war was all about uniting the west (minus Eastern europe) against the Soviets.

        The EU project also was vastly unifying.

        Also in the US neither political party is "now whining about 'unity'" , but rather they're doubling down on vilifying the other guy and trying to throw them in jail.
        As far as Europe i don't keep up as much , but it seems to be the center and left who are trying to "unify" with each other against those "evil" "far-right" people who want to stop the massive flow of African and Middle Eastern migrants.

      • Re:A house divided cannot stand... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Xarius ( 691264 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2025 @03:11AM (#65754976) Homepage

        Not really, the post-WWII (in the west) period saw unprecedented improvements in human rights, social safety nets, co-operation, etc.

        Since the 1980s, pushed hard by Thatcher & Reagan, rich bellends were empowered more and more and more--and started to fuel divisions between populations to distract from the fact that they were making the world worse in every possible way to satisfy their own greed and insecurities.

  • A lot of people are refusing to call a spade a spade. Social media has enabled these reality deniers to connect and cohere their delusions so that they agree on many of the same wrong things. Social media and media in general have further inflamed things by overdramatizing, in order to increase their revenue. Media is holding megaphones up to the stuff that is the craziest.

    It's not "polarization" when some groups are refusing to accept reality, and further, pushing dark false narratives that convenient

    • I'll call him a spade!

      Where is he?!?

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • ...but their megaphones are drowning out reasoned discussion and making it all but impossible.

        And recently...BULLETs have drowned out reasoned discussion.....

        Hard to discuss when you assassinate people trying to openly discuss differences...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xtal ( 49134 )

      Reality denier. Your reality?

      You sound communist.

      The broader trend is that there is a self segregation taking place. I moved to Texas. I love it here. You can be a communist in California and enjoy it there.

      The market will sort it out.

      • Sounds like you say "communist" as if that's a bad thing. Like in the Red Scare in the 1950s.

        You love Texas, eh? Well, I don't like that so many have supported the most blatantly incompetent, bigoted, racist, cheating, lying, riot inciting, traitorous anti-American president ever. Jan 6, 2021! Jan 6, 2021! Jan 6, 2021 -- a day that will live in infamy! Texas, and every other state that did so, should be ashamed to have given its electoral votes to such a monstrous villain, especially in 2024 after

  • We used to stay in relationships longer before because since we only had two friends, each friend had proportionally greater power to emotionally blackmail us into staying?

    I.e. emotional blackmail is really the core of a healthy relationship?

  • In the post-WW2 era, most towns of any size had several very active social/fraternal groups, not to mention churches and workplaces where friendships were forged.

  • Friendships (Score:4)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday October 27, 2025 @10:48PM (#65754760)

    The internet seems to have reduced close friendships in society. When I was growing up I had a clique, a crew. People you'd do stuff outside with. And they'd have your back and vice versa. We'd fist fight one day and the next we're best friends. In addition to friends from school or neighborhood ... there was family, cousins who were like siblings. Lots of friends and still friends with them because of Facebook. I noticed that "friendships" that form nowadays are basically fake. When I was a kid, and up into my late twenties, before people had smartphones etc. you could just go to your friends place for no reason. With people that I met after my twenties, I need a "reason" to go their place and also you have to worry about offending them and things like that. When you go to dinner you have to make sure you pay your part and vice versa. Is that friendship to keep accounts, especially when everyone is well off? When hanging out with friends I made before my thirties, sometimes I pay, sometimes they pay .. without anyone tracking turns or amounts. Sure I might have paid more times than my friend or vice versa. It doesn't matter. Friendship shouldn't be subject to conditions like a business. If someone is going through hardship you'd do everything to help, with zero expectation of it being returned.

    • Re:Friendships (Score:5, Insightful)

      by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Monday October 27, 2025 @11:05PM (#65754778)

      While I agree mostly (I came here to write the same, below your post), I have two comments:

      When I was a kid, and up into my late twenties, before people had smartphones etc. you could just go to your friends place for no reason. With people that I met after my twenties, I need a "reason" to go their place and also you have to worry about offending them

      It's not the smartphone, it's that grew older. Being intrusive, or insulting (offensive) with friends is routine in childhood. As an adult we have learnt RESPECT, a very crucial teaching from parents or teachers.

      Is that friendship to keep accounts, especially when everyone is well off?

      Yes and that's also a question of respect. I can afford to pay for your lunch, but as we are friends and equals I don't need to demonstrate my wealth or generosity with you, and I don't want to create discomfort in that you become indebted with me, even if for small amounts. Friendship is about reciprocity, not about biasing (purchasing) your friendship through money.
      Keeping accounts between friends is codified in a popular sayings; historically Aristoteles in "Eudemian Ethics" (says the internet; I can't find a translation right now), today still a popular saying in France "Les bons comptes font les bons amis", literally "good (correct) accounts make good friends".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 0xG ( 712423 )

      What you are describing is the process of just growing older. No mystery or social change, just aging.

  • Friend vs. Acquaintances (Score:4, Insightful)

    by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Monday October 27, 2025 @10:49PM (#65754762)

    The article misuses the concept of "Friend". We used to have, and still have, only about 2 friends, where friendship is a very specific relation of mutual help. A friend is someone of trust, who would spend time or money to help us in case of need; e.g. drive to pick us up, let us use their sofa for weeks or even months, or lend money to start over with life. We didn't increase in the number of those. Friends who are not politically aligned learn to not talk about politics and continue their happy friendships.

    What we have now are numerous online acquaintances, who may have very strong differences in character, interests, opinions, some of whom we wouldn't tolerate in front of us for more than few minutes long due to the very marked differences. Due to online dis-inhibition, we get exposed to their full political opinions much more than in an IRL relation. Online connection to acquaintances opposite very vocal about their political opinions can be very irritating, and is what drives political polarisation.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Opposite experience personally (Score:3)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2025 @01:34AM (#65754894)

    I actually have friends that are deeply conservative and extremely religious now, which I haven't had for over 30 years. While certain things are still a trigger for me, I generally do try to talk to them about the differences in opinion and we find some common ground. Most of the shit is just tribal, and avoiding thinking that you are "right" is often the start. Understanding what the other side sees (in both directions) is what builds bridges.

    Fortunately very few of them just spout crap from Fox News or whatever, but it makes things interesting.

  • They got it the wrong way around. We are naturally wired to seek out people who share and confirm our views. It's not that having more friends makes us polarised. It's just that social networks make it easier for us to find people who share our opinions (and confirm our biases) who then start calling friends.

    • Yeah public school, public university, corporate jobs are all melting pots, that would homogenize opinions more amongst folks with not much more in common than being colocated; with social media bubbles it is easier to nurture polarized ideas across geographic boundaries.

  • By social media, who funded this study?

  • Lets all just ditch them. I'm in!

  • OP states

    "The sharp rise in...the number of close friends occurred between 2008 and 2010 -- precisely when social media platforms and smartphones first achieved widespread adoption."

    This claim that close friendships dramatically INCREASED by 2.5x with the advent of social media directly contradicts the many studies which find that social media leads to increased loneliness ( AMA Journal of Ethics [ama-assn.org] and PubMed Central [nih.gov]). The phys.org story does not define "close friendships", though it is supposedly based on

  • The reasoning doesn't make sense. For one, people you know from social media are not a "close social circle". Those are people you see in the flesh. Social media provides a large number of loose acquaintances, which going out in public already provided, but now those acquaintances are untethered to geography.

    Tolerance of those in one's "close social circle" is not relevant.

    As much as I like to refer to my dear friend rsilvergun as my dear friend, he is not a member of my "close social circle". The

  • A top reason social media turbocharges polarization is that trolls dominate the conversation and the credulous eat it up:

    - Ok, E., Qian, Y., Strejcek, B., & Aquino, K., (2021) Signaling virtuous victimhood as indicators of Dark Triad personalities. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp00... [doi.org] : Finds that individuals high in Dark Triad traits (Narcissism, Psychopathy, Machiavellianism) are more likely to signal virtuous victimhood. They present as morally righteous v

  • Hmm, I can find close friends on social media. That's a revelation to me. My close friends are all people I see and talk either face to face or over zoom or a phone. My social media "friends" are all not close to me. They are acquaintances. Yes, I talk about sports or geeky topics with my social media contacts, but I don't consider any of them close friends. Apologies to my slashdot non-friends who might be offended.

Slashdot Top Deals

186,000 Miles per Second. It's not just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW.

Close