In the digital age, social media and traditional news outlets play pivotal roles in shaping public opinion. However, these platforms are increasingly criticized for amplifying in-group favouritism, leading to echo chambers that foster moral polarization. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the discourse surrounding LGBTQIA+ issues.

The Mechanics of In-Group Favouritism

In-group favouritism, a well-documented psychological phenomenon, refers to the tendency of individuals to favour and align with their own group while exhibiting prejudice against out-groups. This bias is not limited to personal interactions but extends to the consumption of media, where algorithms and editorial choices reinforce existing beliefs.

Media's Role in Amplifying Echo Chambers

Research by Iyengar and Hahn (2009) highlights that individuals gravitate towards news sources that align with their pre-existing views, a behaviour exacerbated by algorithmic filtering on social media platforms. These platforms, designed to maximize user engagement, prioritize content that users are likely to agree with, thereby reinforcing their existing biases.

A study by Flaxman, Goel, and Rao (2016) found that social media users are more likely to be exposed to like-minded individuals, creating homogeneous networks. This selective exposure leads to echo chambers, where divergent views are minimized, and in-group narratives dominate.

The impact of these dynamics is particularly pronounced in the context of LGBTQIA+ issues, of note the Twitter discussions surrounding the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQIA+ workplace discrimination reveals stark divisions. A review of tweets of the time indicate that supportive and opposing groups interacted minimally, with each side predominantly sharing content that reinforced their respective positions.

Supportive groups celebrated the ruling, sharing stories of personal triumph and equality, while opposing groups framed the decision as a threat to religious freedom and traditional values. These narratives, circulated within echo chambers, deepened the moral chasm between the groups.

Moral Polarization and its Consequences

This segregation of viewpoints contributes to moral polarization, where groups view each other not just as different, but as morally deficient. According to a study by Finkel et al. (2017), moral polarization occurs when political opponents are not only seen as wrong but also as evil or corrupt. This phenomenon is evident in LGBTQIA+ discourse, where opposing sides often accuse each other of undermining fundamental rights and societal values.

The Role of Media in Bridging the Divide

To counteract these trends, media organizations and social platforms must adopt strategies that promote exposure to diverse viewpoints. Research by Guess et al. (2018) suggests that interventions like cross-cutting exposure, where users are introduced to opposing views in a respectful manner, can reduce polarization. Additionally, promoting critical media literacy can empower individuals to critically evaluate content and recognize bias.

Simply Put

In-group favouritism, amplified by media dynamics, fosters echo chambers that contribute to moral polarization in LGBTQIA+ discourse. As these groups increasingly view each other through a moral lens, societal divisions deepen. Addressing this issue requires a concerted effort from media platforms, policymakers, and individuals to promote diverse perspectives and bridge the growing divide.

References

1. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. (apa.org)

2. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

3. Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., ... & Skitka, L. J. (2017). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533-536. Political sectarianism in America - PubMed (nih.gov)

4. Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council. fake-news-2016.pdf (fb.com)