How does Social Media Influence Political Polarization Among Young Adults?
Background and Research
Social media has become an undeniable force in shaping how we communicate, consume information, and ultimately form our opinions. In recent years, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok have fundamentally transformed the way individuals, especially young adults, engage with politics. These platforms are more than just tools for connection - they are hubs of discourse, where political ideologies are debated, shared, and reinforced.
However, with social media’s growing influence, a troubling trend has emerged: political polarization. As political divides grow wider, particularly among young adults aged 18–30, it’s impossible to ignore how social media platforms seem to be contributing to the problem. While these platforms offer vast amounts of information and diverse viewpoints, they also foster environments where people’s political beliefs are constantly reinforced and rarely challenged.
The central question driving this research is: How does social media influence political polarization among young adults? This project applies the Agenda-Setting Theory, which suggests that the media doesn’t necessarily tell people what to think, but it strongly influences what they think about.
In the context of social media, algorithms decide what’s most visible - what trends, what’s pushed to the top of feeds, and what gets the most engagement. These digital gatekeepers shape public discourse by prioritizing emotionally charged or divisive content, creating echo chambers where users mostly see opinions they already agree with. Over time, this intensifies political polarization among young adults, who are some of the most active social media users.
Agenda-setting theory was first proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw during the 1970s, following their study of the 1968 U.S. presidential election. They found that while the media didn’t necessarily change voters’ opinions about political candidates, it did influence which issues the public considered necessary. In the modern digital age, this process has only deepened. Social media platforms now act as agenda-setters through algorithmic curation, making some issues feel urgent and others nearly invisible.
Scholars like Chadwick (2017) note that the hybrid media system - where digital and traditional outlets coexist - has magnified the influence of algorithms. Studies such as Bail et al. (2018) and Tucker et al. (2018) show how exposure to political content on social media often leads not to understanding, but to greater polarization. Even when users encounter opposing views, they frequently respond with resistance rather than openness.
Through the lens of agenda-setting, it becomes clear that social media platforms are not neutral spaces for information exchange; they are powerful curators of perception. By prioritizing content that provokes emotional responses, they guide users toward specific political realities rather than balanced perspectives.
Personal Analysis
The agenda-setting theory gave me a stronger framework for understanding how social media platforms contribute to political polarization among young adults. Before diving into this project, I had a general sense that algorithms were part of the problem, but I didn’t fully grasp how deeply they affect not just what we see, but what we think is essential. Reading the studies showed me that the issue is more complex than just “liberal vs. conservative”; it’s about how content is prioritized to favor emotional responses, which in turn fuels ideological entrenchment.
One pattern that emerged across all five sources was how personalized content feeds strengthen existing beliefs. Even when users are exposed to opposing views (as Bail et al. showed), it often doesn’t create balance; it makes more resistance. That was especially interesting because it challenges the idea that simply increasing access to “both sides” will reduce division. In fact, several studies demonstrated that even when diverse content is technically available, people still gravitate toward what aligns with their identity. That reinforced the importance of the agenda-setting theory in explaining how platforms determine what seems newsworthy or pressing, even without users realizing it.
Another important takeaway was the emotional nature of online political content. Articles by Baumgartner and Tucker both emphasized how political posts are often framed in ways that amplify anger, fear, or outrage. That reminded me of my own social media experience, where viral posts are rarely calm or neutral; they’re designed to provoke. I always say, “Peace does not profit.” My saying explains why social media creators use clickbait to encourage their audience to engage. This emotional intensity doesn’t just drive clicks; it also subtly signals to users that these issues are urgent and that compromise is a weakness. In that way, agenda-setting isn’t just about what topics appear, but how they’re framed to fit an increasingly polarized narrative.
The research also helped me better understand how political identity is shaped in digital spaces. Young adults are still figuring out their political beliefs, and if those beliefs are constantly validated by algorithmically chosen content, there’s little motivation to seek out opposing views. This creates a feedback loop where polarization becomes the default, not the exception. That’s something I see often in conversations with peers: political beliefs are treated more like personal brands than evolving opinions.
Overall, this project deepened my understanding of how media systems influence public thought. Agenda-setting theory provided a crucial lens for interpreting how social media doesn’t just report on the world, it organizes it, ranking some issues as vital while ignoring others. For young adults navigating a polarized political landscape, the consequences of this agenda-setting are profound, shaping not only what they believe but also how they engage - or refuse to engage - with others who disagree.
Supporting research papers over political polarization and social media:
1. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F., ... & Volfovsky, A. (2018).
Title: Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Summary: This study explored whether exposure to opposing political viewpoints on Twitter could reduce polarization. Contrary to expectations, it found that participants—especially Republicans—became more polarized after being exposed to opposing views. This reinforces how agenda-setting and algorithmic exposure often fail to broaden perspectives and instead harden ideological divides. It supports the idea that social media’s design does not encourage open-minded dialogue among young adults. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
2. Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., ... & Nyhan, B. (2018).
Title: Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature
Summary: This literature review identifies how social media contributes to polarization through selective exposure, echo chambers, and algorithmic filtering. It also discusses misinformation as a growing consequence. This piece is foundational in explaining how social platforms reinforce partisan divides, supporting agenda-setting theory’s claim that media cues influence the salience of political issues, especially among young users. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/report/Social_media_political_polarization_and_political_disinformation_A_review_of_the_scientific_literature/9471146?utm
3. Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zilinsky, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2019).
Title: How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data
Summary: Using a combination of Twitter data and surveys, this study found that political echo chambers are not as widespread as often thought. However, the most politically active users, especially younger demographics, were more likely to curate their feeds to align with ideological views. This supports agenda-setting theory by showing that social media platforms still influence which political topics users prioritize, even when diverse content is technically accessible.
4. Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2010).
Title: MyFaceTube politics: Social networking websites and political engagement of young adults
Summary: This article analyzes the role of social media in increasing political engagement among younger audiences, but notes that the nature of engagement is often superficial and emotionally driven. It suggests that political content on these platforms is typically filtered through sensationalism, making serious debate rare. These findings relate to agenda-setting theory by showing how the prioritization of certain types of content—especially partisan or emotional, shapes the perceived importance of issues. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5578/5221?utm
5. Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2018).
Title:Digital political talk and political participation: Comparing established and third wave democracies
Summary:This cross-national study found that digital political talk promotes political participation but also encourages ideological segmentation. Young adults, particularly in advanced democracies, are more likely to express political opinions online, but within ideologically similar groups. Agenda-setting theory applies here as social media platforms act as gatekeepers, deciding which discussions get elevated based on algorithmic interest, often sidelining dissenting or moderate views.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305118784776
Bibliography:
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 524-538. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542
Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-hybrid-media-system-9780190696733
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/36/2/176/1867420
