Examining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization

• Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

• Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Transaction Publishers.

• Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). Social learning theory. Wiley Handbooks in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 230–240.

• Akers, R. L., & Silverman, A. (2004). Toward a social learning model of violence and terrorism. Violence: From theory to research (pp. 19–35).

• Akins, J. K., & Winfree Jr., L. T. (2016). Social learning theory and becoming a terrorist: New challenges for a general theory. The Handbook of the Criminology of Terrorism, 133.

• Al Baghal, T., Sloan, L., Jessop, C., Williams, M. L., & Burnap, P. (2020). Linking Twitter and survey data: The impact of survey mode and demographics on consent rates across three UK studies. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 517–532.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Amjad, N., & Wood, A. M. (2009). Identifying and changing the normative beliefs about aggression which lead young Muslim adults to join extremist anti-Semitic groups in Pakistan. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(6), 514–519.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political analysis, 23(1), 76–91.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Baron, S. W., & Tindall, D. B. (1993). Network structure and delinquent attitudes within a juvenile gang. Social Networks, 15(3), 255–273.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bélanger, J. J., Nisa, C. F., Schumpe, B. M., Gurmu, T., Williams, M. J., & Putra, I. E. (2020a). Do counter-narratives reduce support for ISIS? Yes, but not for their target audience. Frontiers in psychology, 11.

• Bélanger, J. J., Robbins, B. G., Muhammad, H., Moyano, M., Nisa, C. F., Schumpe, B. M., & Blaya-Burgo, M. (2020b). Supporting political violence: The role of ideological passion and social network. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(8), 1187–1203.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Benigni, M. C., Joseph, K., & Carley, K. M. (2017). Online extremism and the communities that sustain it: Detecting the ISIS supporting community on Twitter. PloS one, 12(12), e0181405.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bhui, K., Warfa, N., & Jones, E. (2014). Is violent radicalisation associated with poverty, migration, poor self-reported health and common mental disorders? PloS one, 9(3), e90718.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brandes, U., Lerner, J., Lubbers, M. J., McCarty, C., & Molina, J. L. (2008, March). Visual statistics for collections of clustered graphs. IEEE Pacific visualization symposium, 47–54.

• Brewer, R., Cale, J., Goldsmith, A., & Holt, T. (2018). Young people, the internet, and emerging pathways into criminality: A study of Australian adolescents. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 12(1), 115–132.

  Google Scholar 

• Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: The role of ideology and extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(1), 17–33.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brooks, B., Hogan, B., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., & Vitak, J. (2014). Assessing structural correlates to social capital in Facebook ego networks. Social Networks, 38, 1–15.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bruns, A. (2017). Echo Chamber? What echo chamber? Reviewing the evidence. School of Communication. Digital Media Research Centre.

• Bruns, A. (2019a). It’s not the technology, stupid: How the ‘Echo Chamber’ and ‘Filter Bubble’ metaphors have failed us. IAMCR Conference, Mediated Communication, Public Opinion and Society Section, Submission No.19771. Madrid, Spain.

• Bruns, A. (2019b). Filter bubble. Internet Policy Review, 8(4).

• Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New media & society, 14(7), 1164–1180.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bucher, T. (2013). Objects of intense feeling: The case of the Twitter API. Computational Culture, 3.

• Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., & Miller, D. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), 414–427.

• Castro, J. C. L. D. (2018). Social networks as a model of algorithmic governance. Matrizes, 12(2), 165–191.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists: V. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

• Dezember, A., Stoltz, M., Marmolejo, L., Kanewske, L. C., Feingold, K. D., Wire, S., et al. (2020). The lack of experimental research in criminology—evidence from Criminology and Justice Quarterly. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–36.

• Ducol, B., Bouchard, M., Davies, G., Ouellet, M., & Neudecker, C. (2016). Assessment of the state of knowledge: Connections between research on the social psychology of the Internet and violent extremism. Waterloo: TSAS The Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security, and Society 16-05.

• Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zilinsky, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2019). How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data. Sage Open, 9(1), 2158244019832705.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Everton, S. F. (2016). Social networks and religious violence. Review of Religious Research, 58(2), 191–217.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Frissen, T. (2021). Internet, the great radicalizer? Exploring relationships between seeking for online extremist materials and cognitive radicalization in young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106549.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ganesh, B., & Bright, J. (2020). Countering extremists on social media: Challenges for Strategic communication and content moderation. Policy & Internet, 12, 6–19.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gill, P., Corner, E., Conway, M., Thornton, A., Bloom, M., & Horgan, J. (2017). Terrorist use of the Internet by the numbers: Quantifying behaviors, patterns, and processes. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 99–117.

• Goldsmith, A., & Brewer, R. (2015). Digital drift and the criminal interaction order. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 112–130.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hasisi, B., Carmel, T., Weisburd, D., & Wolfowicz, M. (2020). Crime and terror: Examining criminal risk factors for terrorist recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(3), 449–472.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hawdon, J., & Costello, M. (2020). Learning to hate: Explaining participation in online extremism. In Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization. Emerald Publishing Limited.

• Hawdon, J., Bernatzky, C., & Costello, M. (2019). Cyber-routines, political attitudes, and exposure to violence-advocating online extremism. Social Forces, 98(1), 329–354.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American journal of sociology, 106(4), 1013–1057.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Haynie, D. L., & South, S. J. (2005). Residential mobility and adolescent violence. Social forces, 84(1), 361–374.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hilbert, M., Ahmed, S., Cho, J., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2018). Communicating with algorithms: A transfer entropy analysis of emotions-based escapes from online echo chambers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(4), 260–275.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Holt, T., Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S., & McCauley, C. (2015). Political radicalization on the Internet: Extremist content, government control, and the power of victim and jihad videos. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 8(2), 107–120.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ill, P., Corner, E., Conway, M., Thornton, A., Bloom, M., & Horgan, J. (2017). Terrorist use of the Internet by the numbers: Quantifying behaviors, patterns, and processes. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 99–117.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jose, R., Hipp, J. R., Butts, C. T., Wang, C., & Lakon, C. M. (2016). Network structure, influence, selection, and adolescent delinquent behavior: Unpacking a dynamic process. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(2), 264–284.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jugl, I., Lösel, F., Bender, D., & King, S. (2020). Psychosocial prevention programs against radicalization and extremism: a meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. European journal of psychology applied to legal context, 13(1), 37–46.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kaczkowski, W., Swartout, K. M., Branum-Martin, L., Horgan, J. G., & Lemieux, A. F. (2020). Impact of perceived peer attitudes and social network diversity on violent extremist intentions. Terrorism and Political Violence.

• Kaiser, J., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2020). Birds of a feather get recommended together: Algorithmic homophily in YouTube’s Channel Recommendations in the United States and Germany. Social Media+ Society, 6(4), 2056305120969914.

  Google Scholar 

• Keene, S. D. (2011). Terrorism and the internet: a double-edged sword. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 14(4), 359.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kennedy, J., & Weimann, G. (2011). The strength of weak terrorist ties. Terrorism and Political Violence, 23(2), 201–212.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Krackhardt, D. (1992). The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action (pp. 216–239). Harvard.

• Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Social psychology quarterly, 51(2), 123–140.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• LaFree, G., Weerman, F., & Bijleved, C. (2020). Editor’s Introduction: Terrorism and Violent Extremism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36, 339–405.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Macdonald, S., & Whittaker, J. (2019). Online radicalization: Contested terms and conceptual clarity. In John R. Vacca (Ed.) Online terrorist propaganda, recruitment, and radicalization. Boca Raton:CRC Press 33-45.

• MacKinnon, J. G., & Webb, M. D. (2018). The wild bootstrap for few (treated) clusters. The Econometrics Journal, 21(2), 114–135.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Markgraf, M., & Schoch, M. (2019). "Quantification of Echo Chambers: A Methodological Framework Considering Multi-Party Systems". In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, June 8-14

• Marquardt, D. W. (1980). Comment: You should standardize the predictor variables in your regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(369), 87–91.

  Google Scholar 

• McCauley, C. (2012). Testing theories of radicalization in polls of US Muslims. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12(1), 296–311.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McCuddy, T., & Vogel, M. (2015a). Beyond traditional interaction: Exploring the functional form of the exposure-offending association across online network size. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 89–98.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McCuddy, T., & Vogel, M. (2015b). More than just friends: Online social networks and offending. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 169–189.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., & Thomas, K. J. (2014). Peer influence and context: the interdependence of friendship groups, schoolmates and network density in predicting substance use. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(9), 1436–1452.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Möller, V. (2020). Bedeutung und Nutzen der egozentrierten Netzwerkanalyse in der Radikalisierungsforschung: Ein Werkstattbericht zum Einsatz der Methode. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 103(2), 158–168.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Moskalenko, S., & McCauley, C. (2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21(2), 239–260.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Musa, S., & Bendett, S. (2010). Islamic Radicalization in the United States. New Trends and a Proposed Methodology for Disruption. Washington D.C.: National Defense University, Washington DC Center for Technology and National Security Policy. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA532696.pdf

• Neumann, P. R. (2013). Options and strategies for countering online radicalization in the United States. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(6), 431–459.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Newman, M. E. (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical review E, 67(2), 026126.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• O’Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M., Carthy, J., & Cunningham, P. (2015). Down the (white) rabbit hole: The extreme right and online recommender systems. Social Science Computer Review, 33(4), 459–478.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• O'Hara, K., & Stevens, D. (2015). Echo chambers and online radicalism: Assessing the Internet's complicity in violent extremism. Policy & Internet, 7(4), 401–422.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Olfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2020). A field-wide systematic review and meta-analysis of putative risk and protective factors for radicalization outcomes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(3), 407–447.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Papachristos, A. V. (2011). The coming of a networked criminology. Advances in criminological theory, 17, 101–140.

  Google Scholar 

• Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.

• Pauwels, L., & Schils, N. (2016). Differential online exposure to extremist content and political violence: Testing the relative strength of social learning and competing perspectives. Terrorism and Political Violence, 28(1), 1–29.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Pedersen, M. Y., Smets, S., & Ågotnes, T. (2019). Analyzing echo chambers: a logic of strong and weak ties. In International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 183-198.

• Reed, A., Whittaker, J., Votta, F., & Looney, S. (2019). Radical filter bubbles: Social media personalization algorithms and extremist content. Global Research Network on Terrorism and Technology.

• Rees, C., & Pogarsky, G. (2011). One bad apple may not spoil the whole bunch: Best friends and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(2), 197–223.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Regnér, L. (2014). The YouTube-Born Terrorist. Journal Exit-Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Deradikalisierung und demokratische Kultur, 2, 139–189.

  Google Scholar 

• Repke, L., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2017). Conceptualizing the dynamics between bicultural identification and personal social networks. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 469.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Reynolds, A. D., & Crea, T. M. (2017). The integration of immigrant youth in schools and friendship networks. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(4), 501–529.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Richards, I., & Wood, M. (2020). Responding to online violent extremism. In C. A. Ireland, M. Lewis, A. Lopez, & J. L. Ireland (Eds.), The Handbook of Collective Violence: Current Developments and Understanding (pp. 1–13). Routledge.

• Rieger, D., Frischlich, L., & Bente, G. (2013). Propaganda 2.0: Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist internet videos. Luxemburger:Wolters Kluwer Deutschland.

• Roodman, D., Nielsen, M. Ø., MacKinnon, J. G., & Webb, M. D. (2019). Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest. The Stata Journal, 19(1), 4–60.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sageman, M. (2008). Leaderless Jihad: Terror networks in the twenty-first century. University of Pennsylvania Press.

• Sasaki, Y., Kawai, D., & Kitamura, S. (2015). The anatomy of tweet overload: How number of tweets received, number of friends, and egocentric network density affect perceived information overload. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 853–861.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schmid, A. (2017). Public opinion survey. Data to measure sympathy and support for Islamist terrorism. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism-The Hague.

• Schmitt, J. B., Rieger, D., Rutkowski, O., & Ernst, J. (2018). Counter-messages as prevention or promotion of extremism?! the potential role of youtube: Recommendation algorithms. Journal of communication, 68(4), 780–808.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Shortland, N., Nader, E., Imperillo, N., Ross, K., & Dmello, J. (2017). The interaction of extremist propaganda and anger as predictors of violent responses. Journal of interpersonal violence, 0886260517747599.

• Shortland, N., Nader, E., Thompson, L., & Palasinski, M. (2020). Is extreme in the eye of the beholder? An experimental assessment of extremist cognitions. Journal of interpersonal violence, 0886260520958645.

• Skeggs, B., & Yuill, S. (2016). Capital experimentation with person/a formation: how Facebook's monetization refigures the relationship between property, personhood and protest. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 380–396.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Spiro, E. S. (2016). Research opportunities at the intersection of social media and survey data. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 67–71.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Stevens, T. & Neumann, P. R. (2009). Countering online radicalization: A strategy for action. The International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence. Retrieved from http://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1236768491ICSROnlineRadicalisationReport.pdf.

• Stier, S., Breuer, J., Siegers, P., & Thorson, K. (2020). Integrating Survey Data and Digital Trace Data: Key Issues in Developing an Emerging Field. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503–516.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 7(3), 321–326.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press.

• Sutherland, E. (1947). Principles of criminology. Lippincott.

• Swartout, K. M. (2013). The company they keep: How peer networks influence male sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 3(2), 157.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Turanovic, J. J., & Young, J. T. (2016). Violent offending and victimization in adolescence: social network mechanisms and homophily. Criminology, 54(3), 487–519.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.

• Verrill, S. W. (2008). Social structure-social learning and delinquency: Mediation or moderation? LFB Scholarly Publications.

• Victoroff, J., Adelman, J. R., & Matthews, M. (2012). Psychological factors associated with support for suicide bombing in the Muslim diaspora. Political Psychology, 33(6), 791–809.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Weisburd, D., Wilson, D., Wooditch, A., & Britt, C. (2020). 'Multivariate regression with multiple category nominal or ordinal measures'. In Basic Statistics in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Springer

• Whittaker, J. (2017). International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, The Hague (ICCT). Retrieved from The Sound of an Echo: https://icct.nl/publication/the-sound-of-an-echo/

• Wojcieszak, M. (2010). ‘Don’t talk to me’: Effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society, 12(4), 637–655.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wolfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2021a). Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1174.

• Wolfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2020). A field-wide systematic review and meta-analysis of putative risk and protective factors for radicalization outcomes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(3), 407–447.

• Wolfowicz, M., Perry, S., Hasisi, B., & Weisburd, D. (2021b). Faces of radicalism: Differentiating between violent and non-violent radicals by their social media profiles. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106646.

• Wood, M. A. (2017). Antisocial media and algorithmic deviancy amplification: Analysing the id of Facebook’s technological unconscious. Theoretical Criminology, 21(2), 168–185.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhu, A. Y. F., Chan, A. L. S., & Chou, K. L. (2020). The pathway toward radical political participation among young people in Hong Kong: A communication mediation approach. East Asia, 1–18.

Download references