It is commonly assumed that information bubbles are created mainly by social media algorithms. They show us content similar to what we have already been interested in and gradually surround us with familiar opinions. But a new study reminds us that we also help create these bubbles ourselves when we decide whom to stay connected with and whom it may be better to unfollow.

Researchers from the University of Michigan and Duke University created an experimental social network in which participants could learn about one another’s views on various social issues. The study involved 373 people. Altogether, they made 7,328 decisions about whether to maintain a connection with another user or break it.

The result was quite expected: participants were significantly more likely to cut contact with people whose beliefs differed from their own. The greater the disagreement, the higher the probability that the connection would be broken.

This is how an information bubble can gradually form. We do not necessarily set out to find a space where everyone thinks alike. Sometimes we simply remove, one by one, those whose posts provoke irritation, anxiety, or the urge to argue. As a result, our social environment becomes increasingly homogeneous, while other viewpoints begin to seem rare, strange, or completely unacceptable.

However, the study also identified a factor that helped preserve contact even in the presence of disagreement. If participants saw that they shared mutual connections with another user, they were less likely to cut ties with that person.

Similarity of beliefs and the presence of mutual connections worked independently of each other. Mutual acquaintances did not make participants agree, nor did they eliminate dislike of another person’s position. But they made the connection with that person more stable.

Perhaps the presence of mutual acquaintances makes it harder to perceive someone we disagree with as a complete outsider. They remain part of a familiar social environment, connected to people we already trust. The disagreement does not disappear, but it becomes only one aspect of the relationship rather than the sole basis for deciding whether to maintain contact or end it.

Because the researchers themselves manipulated the information participants saw about mutual connections, it is possible to say that, under the experimental conditions, this factor directly influenced the decisions they made. However, the findings should be applied to real social networks with caution. The experiment took place in an artificially created environment, and participants made isolated decisions about unfamiliar users. Real relationships develop over years and depend on many circumstances that cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

The study does not prove that a “mutual friend” label can rid society of polarization. But it does show that information bubbles arise not only because of how algorithms are designed. They are also shaped by our own decisions about whom we are willing to keep close when we encounter disagreement.

And perhaps a shared social connection can sometimes become that thin thread that helps us avoid turning differences in opinion into a complete end to communication.

Source: Clint McKenna, Ashley Harrell & Ashley Anderson. “Belief consonance and cues of structural embeddedness jointly shape curation in online social networks”, Scientific Reports, 2026