Reconstructing Reality: How Radical Constructivism Unravels Echo Chambers in Online Platforms
Alessandro Martinisi
Free Access
Download the full text in
PDF (267 kB)
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Context: In today’s online media landscape, echo chambers present a significant challenge. These are spaces where opinions that reinforce a particular viewpoint are amplified, while contradictory evidence is minimized. This is particularly problematic in the online ecosystem, which facilitates the rapid spread of opinions within ideologically homogeneous communities. The issue is acute in communication science and media studies, as it affects how public opinions and discourses are shaped. Problem: I explore how radical constructivist perspectives can enhance our understanding of echo chambers in online media consumption. I seek to theoretically address the problems of opinion flow and lack of exposure to multiple and diverse viewpoints, which are crucial for a healthy democratic society. Method: I adopt a radical constructivist approach to analyze how knowledge is constructed within echo chambers, a rather novel approach for media and communication studies. By leveraging the principles of radical constructivism, I investigate the role of individual and collective cognition in shaping online news narratives and public discourse. Results: Echo chambers function as collective cognitive environments where shared beliefs are reinforced through repetitive cycles of agreement and affirmation. This cycle not only limits exposure to diverse perspectives but also solidifies constructed realities, making them resistant to change. Implications: The theoretical insights from this article are beneficial for media practitioners, educators, and researchers in the field of media studies. It suggests avenues of research for introducing radical constructivism principles and practices into digital platforms to mitigate the effects of echo chambers. In this sense, future research could explore practical interventions in media-literacy education that foster critical engagement with multiple viewpoints. Constructivist content: The article connects with radical constructivism by arguing that all knowledge, including online narratives, is actively constructed by individuals within their social contexts. It builds on the work of Ernst von Glasersfeld and other constructivists by applying their theories to understand and address contemporary issues in media studies.
Key words: Communication studies, constructivist theory, echo chambers, Ernst von Glasersfeld, knowledge construction, media studies, online opinions, public discourse, radical constructivism, social media
Citation
Martinisi A. (2025) Reconstructing reality: How radical constructivism unravels echo chambers in online platforms. Constructivist Foundations 21(1): 41–49. https://constructivist.info/21/1/041
Copy Citation
Martinisi A. (2025) Reconstructing reality: How radical constructivism unravels echo chambers in online platforms. Constructivist Foundations 21(1): 41–49. https://constructivist.info/21/1/041
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
Similar articles
References
Bail C. A. (2022) Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton University Press, New Haven CT.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bail C. A., Argyle L. P., Brown T. W., Bumpus J. P., Chen H., Hunzaker M. F. & Volfovsky A. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(37): 9216–9221.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Bakshy E., Messing S. & Adamic L. A. (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239): 1130–1132.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Björgvinsson E., Ehn P. & Hillgren P. A. (2010) Participatory design and “democratizing innovation.” In: Robertson T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th Biennial participatory design conference. ACM Press, New York: 41–50.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cinelli M., Quattrociocchi W., Galeazzi A., Valensise C. M., Brugnoli E., Schmidt A. L. & Scala A. (2020) The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports 10: 16598.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5
Crawford K. (2021) Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Davies W. (2019) Nervous states: Democracy and the decline of reason. W. W. Norton, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ehn P., Nilsson E. M. & Topgaard R. (2017) Making futures: Marginal notes on innovation, design, and democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fisher J. R. (1997) Interactive conflict resolution: Dialogue, conflict analysis, and problem-solving. Syracuse University Press, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Foerster H. von (1984) On constructing a reality. In: Watzlawick P. (ed.) The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? W. W. Norton, New York NY: 41–62
https://cepa.info/1680
Glasersfeld E. von (1989) Constructivism in education. In: Husen T. & Postlethwaite T. N. (eds.) The international encyclopedia of education (Supplementary Volume). Pergamon Press, Oxford UK: 162–163
https://cepa.info/1404
Guess A. M. & Lyons B. A. (2020) Misinformation, disinformation, and online propaganda. In: Persily N., Tucker J. A. & Tucker J. A. (eds.) Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 10–33.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Habermas J. (1985) The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Volume 1. Beacon Press, Boston.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Jamieson K. H. & Cappella J. N. (2008) Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kahane A. (2017) Collaborating with the enemy: How to work with people you don’t agree with or like or trust. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland CA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lederach J. P. (2020) The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lewandowsky S., Cook J. & Ecker U. K. (2018) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 7(4): 353–369.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (1978) Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: Miller G. A. & Lenneberg E. (eds.) Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg. Academic Press, New York NY: 27–63
https://cepa.info/549
Nguyen C. T. (2020) Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme 17(2): 141–161.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pariser E. (2011) The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press, New York NY.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. Translated by Margaret Cook. International Universities Press, New York. French original published in 1936.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sunstein C. R. (2017) #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Yudin G. (2016) Sociology as a naïve science: Alfred Schütz and the phenomenological theory of attitudes. Human Studies 39(4): 547–568.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
