In this episode, I am joined by Dr. Lisa Oswald, a computational social scientist and expert on public discourse in online environments. We dive into an impactful study she coauthored in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, which examines the complex relationship between digital media and democracy. Our discussion covers how digital platforms can both empower political participation and contribute to political polarization. We clarify the differences between correlational and causal evidence, explaining why causal evidence is scarce and challenging to obtain when studying the effects of social media use on democracy. An important takeaway is the skewed nature of content production on social media—where a small number of users generate the majority of content, often amplifying extreme or biased viewpoints. We also explore the importance of political context, the role of corporate responsibility, and the necessity for transparency and content moderation policies to safeguard democratic institutions.
Access the full show notes for this episode at unravelingbehavior.org.
Timestamps
(00:00) Introduction
(01:46) The potential of digital media to erode democracy
(06:33) Research question motivating the study
(07:35) Importance of a systematic literature review
(10:39) Types of digital media and political behaviors analyzed
(14:13) Correlational vs. causal evidence
(18:31) Selection of articles in the review
(19:41) Scarcity of causal evidence and its alignment with correlational findings
(21:03) Beneficial effects of digital media use on political participation
(22:46) Increased digital media use linked to decreased trust in governments
(24:11) Increased digital media use linked to greater political polarization
(25:14) The skewed nature of content production on social media
(28:43) The role of political context
(31:57) Internet companies’ reactions to scientific findings
(33:26) The need for data access for researchers and greater transparency for users
(34:19) Balancing user awareness with corporate and governmental responsibility
(37:15) Conclusion
