Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42876906›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in sociology2026

Consensus or conflict? Recommender systems as recursive exposure systems in the production of polarization.

Sadiq C P, Rahul Shukla

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in sociology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sadiq C PDepartment of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rahul ShuklaDepartment of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recommender systems are central to debates over whether digital platforms fragment public discourse or sustain exposure to diverse information, yet empirical findings remain heterogeneous. This study examines how filter bubbles, echo chambers, and polarization are conceptualized and operationalized in recommender-system research and integrates evidence across algorithmic, behavioral, relational, and outcome levels. A systematic review of 60 studies published between 2020 and 2025, conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA, informs the development of the Platform-Mediated Polarization Framework (PMPF). Extending the recursive logic of Reinforcing Spirals Theory to computationally adaptive recommender environments, PMPF conceptualizes recursive exposure production as a process through which behavioral responses to prior exposure may be incorporated into subsequent ranking and personalization. Evidence was more extensive and direct for recommender-mediated structuring and differentiation of informational exposure than for attitudinal or ideological polarization. Evidence for polarization was more heterogeneous, suggesting that such outcomes are contingent on behavioral, relational, informational, and contextual processes. Direct evidence of recursive feedback was limited to a subset of studies, while others examined component processes or addressed feedback conceptually. The evidence therefore does not support a uniform relationship between recommender systems and polarization. Instead, PMPF integrates these patterns within a system-level framework in which exposure conditions may be recursively produced across successive interactions, while their direction and consequences remain open to empirical investigation.

Indexed as

algorithmic curationecho chamberexposure asymmetrypolarizationrecommender systemsrecursive systems

Identifiers

PMID42876906
PMCPMC13662418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.