dominant information, while others (in which connections are unlikely to know each other) one’s enable the diffusion of underrepresented information. As a result, we expect that an individual’s opinion is, in part, determined by the structure of the network in which she finds herself. To test these hypotheses, we employ an experimental study in which we randomize a sample of adults into online social networks where their connections are either highly connected to one another (high-clustering) or are instead connected to more distant parts of the greater network clustering). We asymmetrically seed competing pieces of political information within each network one argument is seeded less often, while the opposing argument is seeded more often – and we track the diffusion of this information over a 10-day period. We first demonstrate that – in low-clustered networks individuals quickly become exposed to both the dominant and the underrepresented information, whereas high-clustered networks perpetuate the dominance of one side only. As a result of these structural differences, individuals in low-clustered networks learn more about both sides of an issue, are more interested in learning about the issue, and become more sympathetic toward the under-represented viewpoint. In high-clustered networks, on the other hand, infrequently seeded information is persistently drowned out by the most prevalent piece of information, leading to less engagement with the issue and less sympathy for the perspective. Our study provides important empirical evidence for how underrepresented viewpoints can gain the most traction in particular network structures. More broadly, we demonstrate that changes to network structure can mitigate the dominance of one perspective over the other to affect preference formation. Exposure to New Information
dominant information, while others (in which one’s connections are unlikely to know each other) enable the diffusion of underrepresented information. As a result, we expect that an individual’s opinion is, in part, determined by the structure of the network in which she finds herself. To test these hypotheses, we employ an experimental study in which we randomize a sample of adults into online social networks where their connections are either highly connected to one another (high-clustering) or are instead connected to more distant parts of the greater network We asymmetrically seed competing pieces of political information within each network – one argument is seeded less often, while the opposing argument is seeded more often – and we track the diffusion of this information over a 10-day period. We first demonstrate that in low-clustered networks individuals quickly become exposed to both the dominant and the underrepresented information, whereas high-clustered networks perpetuate the dominance of one side only. As a result of these structural differences, individuals in low-clustered networks learn more about both sides of an issue, are more interested in learning about the issue, and become more sympathetic toward the under-represented viewpoint. In high-clustered networks, on the other hand, infrequently seeded information is persistently drowned out by the most prevalent piece of information, leading to less engagement with the issue and less sympathy for the perspective. Our study provides important empirical evidence for how underrepresented viewpoints can gain the most traction in particular network structures. More broadly, we demonstrate that changes to network structure can mitigate the dominance of one perspective over the other to affect preference formation. Exposure to New Information clustering).