DEMOCRACY DISCONNECTED: SOCIAL MEDIA’S CAUSTIC INFLUENCE ON SOUTHEAST ASIA’S FRAGILE REPUBLICS two users entering the same search term would be given identical results, from that point forward they could be presented with wildly varying information reflecting their own preferences and behavior.31 Since then, companies across the internet have adopted similar algorithms that have been applied to a range of online activities. Consequently, individuals are now finding themselves inhabiting a world that seems to reflect their own values and beliefs with little understanding or appreciation of the knowledge that informs the differing views of others.32 The pervasive filtering of online content lends itself to the creation of virtual communities of likeminded individuals who, often lacking physical proximity to one another, might otherwise not come into contact. This, in turn, can produce powerful group dynamics that have an influential sway over the behavior of its members. Owing to the constant reinforcement of commonly held perceptions, individuals within the group are more likely to interpret new information in such a way that affirms the validity of their thinking, an effect known as confirmation bias. More than just having an influence on thought, however, intragroup communication can also instill a bias toward action. People have a natural propensity to take cues from others when trying to determine an appropriate course of action in ambiguous social situations. This principle, known as social proof, can be corrosive as it might compel otherwise moderate individuals to participate in radical activities in response to environmental prompts.33 The anonymity afforded to individuals online likely further amplifies these effects because it contributes to a state of deindividuation that lowers personal inhibitions about engaging in mob behavior.34 It is important to underscore that individual responses to ambiguity are far from monolithic. While humans in general are prone to mitigate ambiguity, a person’s tolerance for uncertainty exists on a spectrum.35 A landmark study by the psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswik suggests that individuals possessing greater rigidity in their thinking have a stronger intolerance of ambiguity.36 Subsequent research by the social psychologist Arie Kruglanski builds upon the idea of ambiguity intolerance and suggests that one’s “need for closure” is not static, but can fluctuate in response to situational factors, culture, and the broader social environment.37 Moreover, this need for closure is amplified during periods of high anxiety.38 What is disturbing about such findings is that they suggest that amid rising uncertainty during a time of global upheaval, there are some individuals who will have a tendency to become more entrenched in their convictions. Rather than weighing evidence in a deliberate analysis of a given situation, they will rush to judgment, grasping at easy explanations to quickly allay their angst. 31 Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think (New York: Penguin Press, 2011). 32 Adam Waytz, “The Psychology Behind Fake News: Cognitive Biases Help Explain Our Polarized Media Climate,” Kellogg Insight, March 6, 2017, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-psychology-behind-fake-news. 33 Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice, 5th Edition (Boston: Pearson Education, 2009); S. Alexander Haslam and Stephen D. Reicher, “Contesting the ‘Nature’ Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show,” PLoS Biology 10, no. 11 (November 2012): 1-4, http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426. 34 Tim Adams, “How the Internet Created an Age of Rage,” The Guardian, July 23, 2011, https://www.theguardian. com/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams. 35 Julie Beck, “How Uncertainty Fuels Anxiety,” The Atlantic, March 18, 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/ archive/2015/03/how-uncertainty-fuels-anxiety/388066/. 36 Else Frenkel-Brunswik, “Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emotional and Perceptual Personality Variable,” Journal of Personality 18, no. 1 (September 1949): 108-143, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x. 37 Jamie Holmes, Nonsense: The Power of Not Knowing (New York: Crown Publishers, 2015). 38 Maria Konnikova, “Why We Need Answers,” The New Yorker, April 30, 2013, https://www.newyorker.com/tech/ elements/why-we-need-answers. Foreign Policy at Brookings | 9