LAUSR

“Facebook facilitates people in making biased evaluations of the beliefs of other people, and using the site gives people practice in mapping social and political identities in stereotyped ways” (p. 236). In the first chapter, Settle describes two types of polarization that she bundles together under the term “psychological polarization”: affective polarization, which is often expressed as negative feelings toward outgroup members, and perceived or false polarization, the tendency to exaggerate the coherence and extremity of the views of outgroup members. Building on a description of the role of the Facebook News Feed in users’ lives, Settle develops a theoretical model that links the affordances of Facebook to psychological polarization and that can be used to generate testable assertions. The framework is informed by insights about Facebook News Feed as “a personalized, quantified blend of politically informative expression, news, and discussion that is seamlessly interwoven in a single interface with non-political content” (p. 15). The core of the book describes a series of survey-based studies used to assess whether the predicted patterns of polarization associated with Facebook use are supported. Settle asserts that Facebook use does more than reinforce users’ political identity: it allows people to recognize the political identity of others based on both the political and nonpolitical content they post and thereby to learn the political views of others, which they would not discover without Facebook. This then leads people to overestimate the level of ideological extremity in outgroups and to inflate the popularity of their views among others. She ties these behavioral responses to the affordances of Facebook, which include tools for identity expression, mixing of social and political content, amplification of opinion leaders, deceptive quantification of content, immediate social feedback, and frequent promotion of inflammatory content. Settle argues that viewing political content on Facebook in an environment rich with social cues and implicitly political content, much of it coming from like-minded users and a good portion of it designed to inflame intergroup divides, helps strengthen emotional responses tied to social identity. The multistage research design, which is based on a series of surveys, offers primary evidence that supports the predictions of the polarizing effects of Facebook use. Of particular note, Settle persuasively argues that social media has a greater impact on those who are less politically engaged: not those doing the talking but those who are listening. A limitation of the study is that the methodology does not offer direct evidence of causality, which Settle readily acknowledges. Additionally, many of the conclusions rely on polarization being a product of Facebook use, not the other way around, an issue addressed in the book but one that will likely be subject to further research and scrutiny. As Settle points out, we are missing observations of individuals becoming more polarized with Facebook use that would offer strong corroboration of her argument. Despite the limitations of the book, however, Frenemies represents the most comprehensive articulation and treatment of the polarizing impact of social media use available and should be essential reading for scholars who delve into this issue. Both Cyberwar and Frenemies are excellent contributions to the field. They are intellectually honest in the inferences that can be drawn and the remaining points of uncertainty. Cyberwar is more accessible to a broad audience, whereas Frenemies will appeal primarily to academic audiences. Jamieson’s book is ultimately a description of the multiple points of vulnerability at the nexus of media, democracy, and intentional media manipulation, pointing out those who unwittingly helped Russian efforts, including the press, social media platforms, the citizenry, candidates, and “polarizers” who exacerbate social and political divides. Settle’s book points to media vulnerabilities to polarization that stem from human psychology and the architecture of social media, which may open us up to both intentional and inadvertent misperceptions. Both books motivate and pave the way for further research and highlight the challenges researchers face in establishing causal relationships in studying digital media consumption and political beliefs.