The emergence and proliferation of digital media use have sparked intense debate about its effects on democracy. Some argue that it reinforces political participation. Others contend that it fuels polarization and distrust. A systematic review by Lorenz-Spreen et al. analyzed 496 studies to understand further this relationship. Results were published in 2023.
Findings revealed different outcomes that were determined by political context and specific variables. Researchers Ziqian Xia, Jinquan Ye, and Ramit Debnath of the Institute for Replication revisited this study further and evaluated its findings using updated data up to March 2024. This replication research confirmed the conclusions of Lorenz-Spreen et al.
The Impact of Digital Media on Democracy: A Double-Edged Sword According to a Review of Hundreds of Studies
Original Study
Lorenz-Spreen et al. conducted a systematic review of 496 scholarly articles to understand the causal and correlational relationships between digital media use and various political variables relevant to democracy. It aimed to determine whether digital media is beneficial or harmful to democratic processes. The following are the findings:
• Dual Effects of Digital Media: Digital media has positive and negative effects on democracy depending on the context. Examples of contexts include the type or particular stage of democracy, political climate, and media regulation, among others.
• Specific Positive Associations: One of the positive effects of digital media is that it provides a platform that helps increase political participation. It also promotes better access to information that can help in guiding individuals to make informed decisions.
• Notable Negative Associations: Digital media can encourage the decline of political trust due to the proliferation of false information. Specific platforms like social networking sites have been used to increase and sustain populism and polarization.
• Deviating Impact on Democracy: The positive impacts of digital media on democracy were more observed in societies with autocracies and emerging democracies. The negative impacts were more visible in older or more established democracies.
The original study of Lorenz-Spreen et al. underscores a complex interplay between digital media and democracy. Specifically, while digital media can promote democratic engagement and transparency, it can also undermine institutions and deepen divisions. The researchers advocated for further research, public awareness, and better regulation.
Replication Study
Researchers Ziqian Xia and colleagues conducted a direct replication of the Lorenz-Spreen et al. study with newer data. A direct replication means they used the same methods and procedures as the original study with the goal of assessing whether the results hold up when applied to a new and updated dataset and check of the conclusions made are reproducible.
The replication began by screening 2567 research papers. Only 110 papers met the criteria of the original study. These criteria include relevance to the research question and strong methodology. The team also used word frequency analysis and a natural language processing technique called topic modeling to detect dominant topics and emerging trends.
Results confirmed the findings from the Lorenz-Spreen et al. study and reaffirmed that the negative impacts of digital media on democracy outweigh its positive impacts in societies with established democracies. The addition of new data expanded the evidence base and gave a more current picture of how digital media is influencing democratic processes.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., and Hertwig, R. 2022. “A Systematic Review of Worldwide Causal and Correlational Evidence on Digital Media and Democracy. In Nature Human Behaviour. 7(1): 74-101. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. DOI: 1038/s41562-022-01460-1
- Ziqian, X., Jinquan, Y, and Ramit, D. 2025. A Comment on “A Systematic Review of Worldwide Causal and Correlational Evidence on Digital Media and Democracy” by Lorenz-Spreen et al. The Institute for Replication. Available online