How Social Media Algorithms Shape Public Opinion - Vivi

    Social media has become the primary information environment for much of the global population, and its algorithmic recommendation systems now play a central role in shaping how individuals interpret news, social issues, and public events. Unlike traditional media, social media platforms curate personalized feeds using machine-learning models that analyze user behavior such as likes, shares, viewing duration, and interaction patterns. This personalization often creates what (Pariser, 2012) describes as filter bubbles, digital spaces where users become isolated from opposing viewpoints. Empirical research confirms that these dynamics foster echo chambers clusters of like-minded users who amplify one another’s beliefs thereby reinforcing ideological segregation (Cinelli et al., 2021). Furthermore, algorithmic systems tend to boost emotionally engaging or sensational content, causing false or misleading information to spread more rapidly than factual news and shaping public perceptions in the process (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Psychological studies also show that individuals are more susceptible to misinformation when they rely on intuitive rather than analytical thinking, suggesting that repeated algorithmic exposure makes it easier for users to accept misleading content as truth (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). In addition, large-scale analyses of online news consumption reveal that algorithmic personalization and selective exposure significantly contribute to echo chambers and ideological polarization in digital environments (Flaxman et al., 2016). As a result, understanding how social media algorithms influence public opinion has become a critical topic in contemporary ICT research, especially regarding misinformation, transparency, and the health of democratic discourse.

    Social media algorithms shape online experiences primarily through personalized curation systems that filter, rank, and recommend content based on user behaviour. These systems collect and analyse signals such as viewing duration, click patterns, and interaction history to determine which posts are most likely to capture a user’s attention. As Pariser (2011) notably described, this form of personalisation leads to the creation of filter bubbles, environments in which individuals are increasingly exposed to information aligned with their existing beliefs and are shielded from contrasting viewpoints. Recent systematic review evidence shows that social media algorithms structurally amplify ideological homogeneity by reinforcing selective exposure and thereby limiting informational diversity (Ahmmad et al., 2025). Empirical simulation-based studies further demonstrate that when users exist within social networks composed of like-minded individuals, algorithmic filtering significantly aggravates polarisation and reduces cross-ideological interaction (Chueca Del Cerro, 2024). Moreover, by optimising for engagement rather than diversity, algorithmic systems tend to prioritise sensational or emotionally charged content, reinforcing existing beliefs rather than challenging them (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Taken together, these findings suggest that the foundational role of algorithmic curation in shaping what individuals encounter online is not merely incidental but central to how opinions begin to form within digital environments.

    Algorithmically curated misinformation intensifies the influence that social media platforms exert on public opinion by promoting content designed to provoke strong emotional reactions. Studies have shown that false or sensational information spreads more rapidly than factual content because algorithms prioritize posts that stimulate engagement regardless of accuracy (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Recent systematic reviews indicate that emotional misinformation is amplified because it aligns with the engagement-maximization objectives of most social media platforms, causing misleading narratives to circulate widely before corrective information can catch up (Ahmmad et al., 2025). Compounding this issue, new empirical evidence shows that repeated exposure to misleading or biased content can generate an illusion of consensus, where individuals incorrectly believe that certain opinions are widely shared simply because they frequently encounter them in algorithmically filtered environments (Desai et al., 2022). Psychological research further demonstrates that once individuals adopt misinformation that fits their pre-existing beliefs, it becomes resistant to correction due to confirmation bias and belief persistence (Ecker et al., 2022). Collectively, these findings illustrate how algorithmic amplification of misinformation not only accelerates its spread but also distorts public judgment by shaping what people perceive as true, normal, or widely accepted.

    Beyond the spread of misinformation, social media algorithms influence public opinion through deeply rooted psychological mechanisms that shape how individuals interpret and internalize information. One of the most prominent mechanisms is confirmation bias, where users tend to believe content that aligns with their existing beliefs and discount information that contradicts them. Empirical research shows that algorithmically curated environments intensify this bias by repeatedly exposing users to belief-consistent content, thus making alternative viewpoints less cognitively accessible (Ecker et al., 2022). Another critical mechanism is emotional contagion, where emotions such as anger or outrage spread across networks, amplifying shared sentiment and strengthening group identity, studies of social media show how sentiment flows and influences behavior via algorithmic exposure (Ferrara & Yang, 2015). In addition, social learning within digital communities, especially those curated by algorithmic prioritization can magnify moral outrage as users observe and replicate high-intensity emotional responses, leading to heightened polarization and decreased willingness to engage across ideological divides (Brady et al., 2021). These intertwined psychological and social dynamics reveal that algorithms do not merely deliver information; they actively shape how people feel, react, and connect to social groups. As a result, algorithmic systems contribute to large-scale shifts in public attitudes and intensify divisions within society.

    In conclusion, the influence of social media algorithms on public opinion extends far beyond simple content personalization. The literature consistently shows that algorithmic filtering shapes how individuals encounter information, reinforcing selective exposure and limiting the diversity of perspectives available to users. The amplification of misinformation further distorts public understanding, especially as emotionally charged or misleading content spreads rapidly through engagement-driven algorithms. Psychological mechanisms, including confirmation bias, emotional contagion, and social learning.Intensify these effects by shaping how users interpret, feel, and react to online information. Together, these findings indicate that social media algorithms do not merely organize content; they actively construct the informational and emotional environments that guide public opinion. Therefore, addressing issues of algorithmic transparency, digital literacy, and ethical platform design is essential to ensure that digital information ecosystems support informed and democratic public discourse.  

REFERENCE

Ahmmad, M., Shahzad, K., Iqbal, A., & Latif, M. (2025). Trap of social media algorithms: A systematic review of research on filter bubbles, echo chambers, and their impact on youth. Societies, 15(11), 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110301 

Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7(33). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641 

Chueca Del Cerro, C. (2024). The power of social networks and social media’s filter bubble in shaping polarisation: An agent-based model. Applied Network Science, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-024-00679-3 

Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118 

Desai, S. C., Xie, B., & Hayes, B. K. (2022). Getting to the source of the illusion of consensus. Cognition, 223, 105023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105023 

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y 

Ferrara, E., & Yang, Z. (2015). Measuring emotional contagion in social media. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142390 

Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006 

Pariser, E. (2012). FILTER BUBBLE. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446431164 

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559