A Cognitive Representation Theory in Social Media: A Novel Explanation of Political Polarization in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Author

, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Hakim Sabzevary University Sabzevar, Iran.

10.22126/tbih.2025.12436.1039

Abstract

Social media platforms have, in recent years, transformed into a key arena for shaping public opinion and reproducing socio-political cleavages in Iran. The current research, driven by the central question, "How does the interaction between social media, cognitive processes, and political narratives lead to socio-political polarization?", proposes a novel framework. Within this framework, the "Cognitive Representation Theory in Social Media" explains how media content reconstructs users' perceptions by activating cognitive biases, collective emotions, and attention-reinforcing algorithms. This, in turn, paves the way for the intensification of identity cleavages and political polarization. The theory’s conceptual model depicts a feedback loop illustrating the interaction among five key components: platform and algorithmic structures, individual cognitive processes, political-media narratives, collective behaviors, and foreign actors' interventions in the form of cognitive warfare. Utilizing secondary data analysis and theoretical analysis, this framework provides a deeper understanding of cognitive-media processes, enabling policy interventions in the domains of cognitive media literacy education, platform regulation, and cognitive defense. The findings indicate that platform algorithms systematically intensify polarization in Iran by reinforcing confirmation bias and fostering informational echo chambers and emotional narratives. The proposed theory also represents a step toward localizing the concepts of "perceptual warfare" and "cognitive representation" within the Iranian social context.

Keywords

References

Al-Zaman Md. S. (2024). Patterns and trends of global social media censorship: Insights from 76 countries, International Communication Gazette, https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485241288768.
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160.
Barberá, P. (2015). How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2369917.
Ciampaglia Giovanni Luca, Filippo Menczer. (2018). Biases Make People Vulnerable to Misinformation Spread by Social Media, (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biases-make-people-vulnerable-to-misinformation-spread-by-social-media).
Cinelli, M. et al. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. PNAS, 118(9): e2023301118isi.itisi.itisi.it. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Claverie du Cluzel, J. (2023). Cognitive warfare: The contest of the human mind. Innovation Hub – NATO ACT. https://innovationhub-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CW-article-Claverie-du-Cluzel-final_0.pdf
Dylko Ivan B. (Nov 2015). How Technology Encourages Political Selective Exposure, Communication Theory, DOI: 10.1111/comt.1208.
Entman, R. M. (1993). "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm." Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Farzam, A., Moradi, P., Mohammadi, S., Padar, Z., & Siegel, A. A. (2023). Opinion manipulation on Farsi Twitter. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 333. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-26921-5.
Garrett, R. K., & Stroud, N. J. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in selective exposure among liberals and conservatives. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 680–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12105.
Ghai, S., Magdy, W., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Dynamics of COVID-19 vaccine discourse on Twitter: A comparative study of six countries. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 5927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32962-1.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 13–74). London, UK: Sage.
Johnson, T. J., & Lee, T. (2024). Social media and political participation. In Z. Yan (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cyber Behavior.Cambridge University Press.
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2022). Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(8), 560–576. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-022-00093-5
Jungherr, A. (2020, April 27). Syllabus: Discursive power. Andreas Jungherr. Retrieved from https://andreasjungherr.net/2020/04/27/syllabus-discursive-power/
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Majidifard Ehsan, Atiyeh Kamyabi Gol, Amin Majidifard (2021). Representation of Iranian identity and its components on social media (Twitter), new Media Studies, Volume 6, Issue 24, 98-63.
Morales, G. D. F. Cinelli, M, Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118.
Modgil, Sachin; Singh, Rohit K.; Gupta, Shivam; & Dennehy, Denis. (2022). A confirmation bias view on social media induced polarisation during COVID-19. (Published online, PMC8604707).
Modgil Sachin, Rohit Kumar Singh, Shivam Gupta, Denis Dennehy. (2021), A Confirmation Bias View on Social Media Induced Polarisation During Covid-19, Information Systems Frontiers, November 2021
Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00148
 Pangotra, A. (2024). The Algorithmic Echo Chamber: How Curated Content Fuels Misinformation. CyberPeace Blogscyberpeace.orgcyberpeace.org.
Pariser, Eli. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.
Pierce, B. M. (2021, February 10). Protecting people from disinformation requires a cognitive security proving ground. C4ISRNET. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2021/02/10/protecting-people-from-disinformation-requires-a-cognitive-security-proving-ground/
Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2021). News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637445
Wafig, nailul Fathul (2023, May 11). The power of social media: Shaping political discourse in the digital age. Modern Diplomacy. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. In retrieved from https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/05/11/the-power-of-social-media-shaping-political-discourse-in-the-digital-age/
Waytz, A. (2017, March 6). The Psychology Behind Fake News: Cognitive biases help explain our polarized media climate. Kellogg Insight. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-psychology-behind-fake-news
Howard, P. N., & Woolley, S. (2018). Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media. Oxford University Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics