Echo chambers and social mediators in public advocacy issue networks

Highlights

• Explored how politically motivated consumer advocacy was communicated on Twitter.

• Employed a mixed method combining content analysis and social network analysis.

• Showed political homophily varied across retweet, mention, and reply networks.

• Illustrated the dominance of the echo chamber phenomenon.

• Identified two social mediators, bridgers and echoers, in advocacy communication.

Abstract

The growing trend of politically motivated consumer boycotts and buycotts on social media not only impacts a company’s financial bottom line, but more fundamentally disrupts relationships between the firm and its publics, the cornerstone of public relations (Ferguson, 1984; Sommerfeldt, & Kent, 2015). On a broader level, such politically motivated advocacy is a critical facet of civil society with important implications on the societal role of public relations (Taylor, 2010). In light of the significance of politically motivated consumer advocacy to public relations, a multi-phase, exploratory study was conducted. Study 1 applies content analysis and social network analysis to examine how different interactive mechanisms on social media—retweet, mention, and reply—may affect communication within and between communities of different ideological views surrounding the boycott and buycott issues. Study 2 further explores the challenges and opportunities of fostering exchange of diverse viewpoints by identifying new social mediators—the “echoers” who propel information flow among in-group members, and the “bridgers” who initiate communication with political out-group members—and assess the key network characteristics of these social mediators. The findings of these two studies advance public relations theories on networks, intergroup communication, and civil society by illustrating how social media structure and social mediators shape the networked public discourse to facilitate or inhibit conversations between publics of different ideological orientations.

Introduction

Recognizing the wide-reaching, complicated web of connections across organizations, stakeholder groups, communities, and societies that the practice of public relations is situated in, recent research has questioned the dominant dyadic organization-public relationship (OPR) model to expand the theoretical considerations of public relations in the domain of civil society research. For instance, through an interorganizational network perspective, Sommerfeldt and Kent (2015) extends relationship management theory (Ferguson, 1984) to study how the quality of relationships among civil society organizations, including NGOs, donors, and media, affects the structure of media development in Peru. Distinct from prior research that addresses organization-centric networks (e.g., Sommerfeldt, 2013; Wu & Yang, 2017; Yang & Saffer, 2018), this study focuses on public-centric networks to understand the macro, societal role of public relations (Zhou, 2019) and to deepen the fusion of public relations and civil society research. Specifically, given that “the foundation of civil society is the public” (Taylor, 2010, p. 10), this study examines the networks of civil discourse among grassroot netizens on social media. By illuminating the structure of politically motivated public advocacy networks and identifying the key actors in the constructing and deconstructing of online echo chambers, this study seeks to pinpoint the challenges and opportunities for the exchange of diverse ideas and viewpoints essential to democracy in civil society (Edwards, 2016; Taylor, 2010).

Driving the worldwide trend of “advocacy 2.0” (Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012), social media has become the primary platform for civic conversation where different information and ideas are defined, exchanged, contested, and negotiated (Park & Reber, 2008). The hyper-connected, sharing-oriented social media such as Twitter and Facebook are now the primary source of news and information, playing a critical role in public events and movements such as #MeToo (Baccarella, Wagner, Kietzmann, & McCarthy, 2018), and BlackLivesMatter (Mundt, Ross, & Burnett, 2018). Indeed, social media have accelerated the speed of communication and augmented its reach; they have also made it easier to analyze connections and improve our understanding of how networks mediate the emergence of collective action. Research in public relations has examined the effects of social media on various aspects of public advocacy and civic participation, from fostering collective action (You & Hon, 2019) to mobilizing social movements (Xiong, Cho, & Boatwright, 2019). However, few studies in the field have examined the social media advocacy patterns of netizens (Park, Park, Lim, & Park, 2016), and different types and characteristics of online advocates (Himelboim, Golan, Moon, & Suto, 2014), particularly in relation to value-laden, contentious public issues.

To advance theoretical understanding on public advocacy on social media, this study focuses on one of the most prevalent and visible forms of advocacy in the contemporary media landscape: consumers’ politically motivated purchases (i.e., “buycotting,” Neilson, 2010) and withdraw from purchases (i.e., boycotting) to support or punish businesses for sociopolitical reasons (Creswell & Abrams, 2017). Given today’s volatile political climate and divided public opinion, companies are often targets of consumer boycotts or buycotts due to the companies’ or their corporate leaders’ stands in highly divisive sociopolitical issues (Tergis, 2017). Consumer advocacy campaigns such as #GrabYourWallet and #BuyIvanka not only impact a company’s corporate bottom line and reputation, but fundamentally disrupt the relationship between the firm and its stakeholders, the cornerstone of public relations (Hon & Grunig, 1999). More importantly, these politically motivated consumer advocacy campaigns reflect the broader public discourse on polarizing sociopolitical issues with actionable goals and easily identifiable corporate targets.

As both the consumption of information and interactions between citizens are core components of public discourse (Mittelstadt, 2016) and at the heart of civil society (Yang & Taylor, 2013), this research seeks to understand how politically motivated consumer advocacy is communicated and debated via different interactive mechanisms on social media. Specifically, focusing on Twitter, an important medium of social movements (Kharroub & Bas, 2016), this research aims to illuminate the impact of network structure on public discourse (Study 1) and identify the key social mediators (Himelboim et al., 2014) that shape the composition and contestation of public discourse on social media (Study 2).

Results of the two studies contribute to public relations theory development by advancing existing understanding of public advocacy as well as networked public relations. First, the study results expand public relations research in the domain of civil society by examining the phenomenon of ideological echo chambers in the political consumer advocacy context. Second, this research explores how contentious public discourse is shaped by two key social mediators that have not been closely and carefully scrutinized in extant literature: the “echoers” who propel information flow within political in-group members, and the “bridgers” who initiate communication with political out-group members. Third, this research advances the emerging network paradigm in public relations by connecting important social network constructs with theoretical perspectives of intergroup communication as well as bonding versus bridging social capital to understand the configuration of social media advocacy on divisive political issues. Fourth, by examining public-centric networks surrounding controversial political issues, this research expands the literature on organization-centric networks in public relations.