At a time of growing social tension, NEOMA’s Emma Lei Jing and colleagues have been studying the phenomenon of echo chambers. Their research examines how discussions about sensitive issues – the environment or health, for instance – often turn into echo chambers that isolate members from opposing points of view.

Our modern world is sharply divided by a range of burning issues, from the climate emergency and vaccination to government policy on immigration. While some discussions and debates around contentious issues have resulted in historic change – the abolition of slavery, for example, or women’s suffrage – others have ended in deadlock, with stakeholders clinging to irreconcilable positions.

Social scientists are familiar with this phenomenon, referring to it as an echo chamber. These virtual spaces amplify arguments and emotions, which are then repeated by like-minded individuals, spawning an information bubble that is resistant to dissenting voices. The study co-authored by NEOMA’s Emma Lei Jing asked the questions: How do discussions on sensitive topics develop into echo chambers? What role do emotions play in this process that insulates opinion and escalates disagreement?

The dynamics of discord

Although we now have a better understanding of how these discussions take shape, there has been little research as yet into the mechanisms that allow disagreements to persist and intensify over time. The NEOMA researcher and her colleagues analysed what people had to say about the harm reduction policy in the field of addiction in Alberta, Canada.

The aim of this public health strategy is to reduce the adverse consequences of substance abuse without calling for abstinence. It includes initiatives such as distributing clean syringes and setting up supervised injection sites. Since it was introduced in 2008 in a Canadian province, the policy has led to a radical shift in public debate, generating division between proponents and opponents. The researchers used this case to develop a model aimed at understanding the dynamics of contestation in the field of addictions that may lead to the formation of echo chambers.

A moral emotional divide

The study underscores the critical role of moral emotions, which – unlike emotions based on self-interest – concern the welfare of society. In discussions around contentious issues, such as addictions, our stance is often shaped by our own conception of right and wrong, except that there isn’t universal agreement about what is right or wrong. As a result, each party believes it is championing what’s right and good for society.

When individuals infuse their discourse with moral emotions, it escalates disagreement and deepens the divisions in public debate. In fact, these emotions serve as fuel for such escalating conflict. Everyone is convinced, on an almost visceral level, that the other party is in the wrong. This feeling is so powerful that what begins as a moral position gradually evolves into a repudiation not only of the opposing idea but of anyone who subscribes to it. The researchers noted that this type of discourse is marked by a heightening of negative emotions such as frustration, anger, and disgust towards the opposing party.

In short, these emotions end up alienating proponents and opponents. Discussions cease to exist because each side stops listening to opposing arguments and discourse. The researchers demonstrate that the emergence of echo chambers is tightly linked to a bias around the notion of morality. Each party feels that the other is morally wrong since it clashes with its vision of what is good for society.

No smoke without fire

This gradual transition towards echo chambers is catalysed by triggering events that attract attention or an emotional response. In this study, these events include the opioid crisis in 2012, which exposed the severity of the problem, followed by the election of successive governments that were sometimes for and sometimes against the harm-reduction practices central to the debate.

On each occasion, these triggers marked a turning point that intensified the divisions between the various groups. For instance, shining a spotlight on the divisive issue encouraged people who had not yet done so to take sides. Fresh fuel was added to the debate by new actors and new rhetoric, with the aforementioned emotions still weighing heavily.

Is pragmatism the solution?

The research shows that echo chambers develop out of ongoing social processes that individuals cling to on the basis of differing interpretations about what is “right” or “wrong”. To mitigate these effects, the researchers suggest that governments set out their arguments pragmatically – by, for example, framing harm reduction as a way of cutting healthcare costs. In broader terms, the authors suggest exploring strategies that might promote a less emotional, calmer dialogue around controversial issues.

Find out more

Jing, E. L., Goodrick, E., Reay, T., & Huq, J.-L. (2024). Issue Fields and Echo Chambers: Increasing Field Contestation Fueled by Moral Emotions. Organization Studies, 45(12), 1713-1740. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241280004