From Silicon to Himalayan Valley(s): Tales of Serendipitous Exposure and Interfaith Contact on Social Media

Abstract

This study compares two adjacent remote valleys in the Himalayas of Pakistan, which only differ in terms of the availability of internet access. Using a unique methodological approach, combining a natural experiment design and an interview method, we explore the role of serendipitous exposure and interfaith contact on social media in relation to the religious majority’s knowledge about religious minorities and willingness to engage with them. We find that those who have internet access and use social media show more knowledge about and engagement with religious minorities than those who do not. Serendipitous exposure largely explains the differences—social media users do not intentionally seek information about religious minorities but still serendipitously come across it while using social media for other activities. Moreover, social media users tend to have extensive networks of social ties (i.e., Facebook friends), which frequently cut across religious lines and likely act as the main facilitators of serendipity. We argue that mediated serendipity and increased interfaith contact promoted by social media platforms are essential contributors to democratic citizenship in present-day Pakistan, where religious minorities represent a small segment of the population and often face discrimination and persecution.

Keywords

social media serendipitous exposure interfaith contact natural experiment interview

Introduction

What happens when social media arrive in the remote valleys of the Himalayas in Pakistan? In particular, what role do these platforms play in facilitating interfaith contact and providing serendipitous paths for learning about other religions to its inhabitants? Given the physically isolated position of villages and lack of face-to-face contact with religious Others, social media platforms offer villagers a unique glimpse into the big world out there and opportunities to connect with more than three billion social media users. By taking advantage of the exogenous differences in the availability of internet access due to the topography of two adjacent valleys in the Himalayas of Pakistan, this study examines these questions by combining a natural experiment design with an interview method. The issue of interfaith contact and religious tolerance is critical as Pakistan is an absolute Muslim-majority country, where members of other religious groups and minority denominations often face persecution and discrimination (Freedom House, 2022; Ispahani, 2017; Shaikh, 2018). The 2017 census shows that non-Muslim minorities are less than 5% of the population, with Hindus (1.8%) and Christians (1.6%) representing the two largest minority groups. This study examines whether Muslim villagers (i.e., with internet access) who use social media differ from those who do not use social media (i.e., without internet access) in terms of knowledge about and engagement with non-Muslims. We then explore specific social media experiences that could explain knowledge and engagement related to religious Others.

Social Media and Interfaith Relations

Thanks to social media, horizontal connectivity has grown across the usual sociopolitical cleavages, including ethnicity, religion, and political orientation, connecting previously unconnected individuals from various social groups (Schumann et al., 2012; Schwab et al., 2018; Žeželj et al., 2017). These platforms also facilitate diverse sources of information and many opportunities for socialization with members of different social groups, potentially increasing intergroup contact and mutual acceptance (Imperato et al., 2021; Lev-On & Lissitsa, 2015; Lissitsa, 2016). Notably, social media platforms are accelerating exposure across social cleavages in traditional and religious societies, where people historically used to connect primarily based on their family and clan membership, ethnicity, religion, or language. Hence, if used appropriately, social media use can improve intergroup relations, especially inter-religious ties (Schumann et al., 2012; Schwab et al., 2018; White et al., 2015). For instance, Rohman et al. (2018) showed that during the 2011 Ambon Christian and Muslim conflict, Indonesian citizens used a Facebook group for information validation to reduce tension and increase tolerance between both communities by combating rumors and fake news. Rohman and Ang (2019) also showed that diverse interpersonal ties, particularly friendships with people of different religions, helped counter misinformation by participating in the verification process to foster peace (also see Rohman, 2020; Rohman & Pitaloka, 2020).

In Pakistan, social media platforms have become an increasingly important digital tool for promoting inclusiveness and raising awareness about the plight of religious minorities (Dilawri et al., 2014; Yusuf et al., 2013). For instance, civic organizations and activists use Twitter to disseminate information about incidents that might otherwise go unreported in the mainstream news media (Yusuf et al., 2013) and use Facebook to organize related events and connect with ordinary citizens (Dilawri et al., 2014; Yusuf et al., 2013). Social media also serve as a digital tool for journalists to raise awareness among the public (Dilawri et al., 2014), spotlighting the challenges that religious minorities face. These civic activities educate the public about the grievances of religious minorities and encourage progressive citizens to take actions to address religious minorities’ issues (Tamsut, 2015; Tanzeem, 2020). Furthermore, a recent study using nationally representative survey data from Pakistan shows that the frequency of Muslims using digital media to obtain information reduces the negative effect of their religious bias on trust in religious Others, suggesting that the relationship between religious bias and trust in religious Others is insignificant for Muslims with a high level of digital media use (Masood et al., 2022).

However, the internet is still primarily used by men, younger people, middle-class groups, and urban dwellers in Pakistan (DataReportal, 2022; Galpaya et al., 2018). Thus, many citizens are still excluded from the social media world, particularly those living in remote rural areas. This creates a unique opportunity to understand the impact of social media by comparing similar groups of internet users and nonusers. This study explores whether internet access, mainly social media use, explains knowledge and engagement related to religious minorities. What are the social media experiences that facilitate knowledge and engagement? To answer these questions, we compare two communities—one with internet access and the other without. Drawing from the extant literature, we relied on two key concepts to explain the social media practices that could foster knowledge and engagement: serendipitous exposure and interfaith contact on social media.

Serendipitous Exposure and Social Media

Serendipity or serendipitous exposure describes an unanticipated (and sometimes unwanted) yet fundamentally positive experience. In other words, it refers to learning or gaining something valuable unexpectedly and unintentionally (Van Damme et al., 2020). But how do we conceptually differentiate serendipitous exposure from other unexpected and inadvertent exposures, such as incidental or accidental exposure (Valeriani & Vaccari, 2016)? Unlike incidental exposure, serendipity is a phenomenon as it is not only about an unplanned and undesired encounter but also one that contributes a significant value to an individual’s life. For example, serendipitous exposure has been a critical factor in many scientific innovations and technological breakthroughs. Rogers (1995) emphasized in his seminal work “Diffusion of Innovations” that serendipity often plays a vital role in scientific discoveries, citing the invention of Warfarin blood-thinning medication, which resulted from an experiment on the sweet clover disease among farm animals.

Prior studies have suggested that social media platforms facilitate serendipitous exposure to information (Race & Makri, 2016; Reviglio, 2019; Sun et al., 2013; Van Damme et al., 2020). In particular, scholars argue that incidental exposure is likely to occur when social media users are not actively looking for information but when they are engaged in non-news-related behaviors, such as social and recreational activities (Nanz et al., 2020; Valeriani & Vaccari, 2016). In other words, serendipitous exposure is a byproduct of the users’ different social media activities. The unintentional exposure to information that an individual is not looking for could help them learn about various sociopolitical issues, including religious Others. One could argue that serendipitous exposure is more likely to happen on social network sites like Facebook, where users can access various information sources and develop a diverse network of interpersonal ties (Race & Makri, 2016; Scheffauer et al., 2021). Empirical evidence also shows that serendipity occurs on microblogging sites like Twitter and Weibo (Sun et al., 2013). In short, previous studies show that social media platforms are a crucial facilitator of serendipitous exposure or serve as a vital gateway to serendipity (e.g., Scheffauer et al., 2021). The current scholarship on social media incidental exposure focuses primarily on their role as a facilitator of political engagement, emphasizing their positive effects on democratic processes and development (e.g., Ahmed & Gil-Lopez, 2022; Heiss & Matthes, 2019; Kim et al., 2013; Yamamoto & Morey, 2019). For example, scholars argue that incidental exposure improves understanding and sparks interest, ultimately enhancing participation (Nanz et al., 2020; Valeriani & Vaccari, 2016). An early study on how online incidental news exposure impacts political knowledge found that incidental exposure educates the public about political affairs (Tewksbury et al., 2001). More recently, Nanz and Matthes (2020) reported that incidental exposure increases knowledge when individuals effortfully process the encountered information instead of just scanning it.

In sum, both serendipitous and incidental exposure are beneficial for the citizenry as they are likely to present alternative angles to different social issues, exposing citizens to unforeseen perspectives (Lu & Lee, 2018; Van Damme et al., 2020). As citizens need to broaden their horizons (Reviglio, 2019; Sunstein, 2017), meaning that unexpected exposure to information they do not actively seek is potentially healthy for a democracy. Specifically, incidental exposure to positive news stories and information about religious Others is likely to result in more democratic attitudes and behaviors toward members of other faiths. For instance, incidental exposure to a Facebook post about a fellow non-Muslim countrymate’s contribution to Pakistan or a story about interfaith friendship in Pakistan is likely to help improve the interfaith relations in the country. Kalin and Siddiqui (2017) found that people show more tolerance when they are exposed to the contribution of religious minorities to the international image of Pakistan. We argue that in Pakistan, those who have access to the internet and use social media are more likely to serendipitously get exposed to news stories and information regarding religious minorities than their counterparts. Although people may not intentionally look for information on social media about religious Others in Pakistan, serendipitous exposure might be the byproduct of their social media use. As a result, knowledge and engagement related to fellow citizens of different religious affiliations are likely to increase.

Intergroup Contact and Social Media

In addition, research suggests that positive interaction and exchange of information between different social groups improve with intergroup contact, ultimately increasing liking and respect for each other (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). Interfaith contact on social media is also reported to advance interfaith tolerance and relations, even during conflict and postconflict times (Rohman & Ang, 2019; Rohman et al., 2018). The structural and social settings influence the attitudes and behaviors of an ingroup regarding the outgroups, such as the opportunities for contact, equal status, and contact with high-status members of the outgroup (Allport, 1954). Social media platforms are potential enablers of such cross-group communication. For example, Facebook users can easily reach out to members of other religious groups without the aforementioned societal barriers by simply sending friendship requests.

Moreover, social media interfaith contact is more vital in places where people do not have the opportunities to meet and get to know religious Others in-person, such as in remote and isolated communities. It is also significant in places where local opinion leaders, such as clerics, and traditional media, such as radio, are the primary sources of information. Following the central argument that interacting with people of different faiths reduces biases and prejudices, several studies have shown that interfaith contacts on social media significantly promote positive interfaith interaction (Lissitsa, 2016; Lissitsa & Kushnirovich, 2019; Schumann et al., 2012; Schwab et al., 2018; White et al., 2015). However, at the same time, this could also be partly due to exposure to information about other religions and their practices through interfaith contacts on social media. Furthermore, empirical evidence from political communication literature shows that network heterogeneity predicts unexpected and inadvertent exposure to political information (Ahmadi & Wohn, 2018; Ahmed & Gil-Lopez, 2022; Kim, 2011; Scheffauer et al., 2021). Studies also show that social network diversity is associated with political tolerance (e.g., Ikeda & Richey, 2009).

In sum, we argue that intergroup contacts on social media could be the key facilitator of serendipitous exposure. More specifically, the size and diversity of an individual’s interpersonal network on social media are likely to foster serendipitous exposure, which in turn is likely to explain an individual’s knowledge and engagement regarding other religions. In other words, the phenomenon of serendipitous exposure could be expected to be more common on social media, thanks to the digital platforms’ capacity to build and maintain substantially large and heterogeneous social networks (Ahmadi & Wohn, 2018; Scheffauer et al., 2021). Yet, the potential promises of serendipitous exposure and interfaith contact on social media could be limited due to the existing digital divide in contemporary societies, notably in developing nations like Pakistan.

Natural Experiment and the Context of the Valleys

A natural experiment is a research method for testing a causal relationship between two events by examining the outcome event without manipulating the treatment event. By comparing control and experimental groups, researchers can claim that the treatment has a causal effect on the outcome (Sekhon & Titiunik, 2012). The group treatments are either created by nature or other factors, not by researchers. In a classic study, Williams (1986) examined television effects using a natural experiment. The author collected data from a town before it received a television signal (called “Notel”) and two other towns—a town with a single television channel (called “Unitel”) and a town with four television channels (called “Multinet”). After comparing the three towns over time, Williams (1986) found significant effects of television on violent behaviors, cognitive development, reading skills, sex-role perceptions, and community participation. However, a similar study by Charlton et al. (2002) did not find such effects of television on children. The data were collected from school students on St. Helena Island before the community had television signals and after it was accessible for 2 years. Charlton et al. (2002) argued that community norms resisted the substantial effects of television viewing, demonstrating the importance of context.

Similar to Williams’s (1986) research design, we identified two comparable remote adjacent valleys in the Himalayas of Pakistan (see Figure 1)—one without internet access known as “Kundos” (henceforth “Nonet”) and a nearby one with internet access called as “sub-Masherbrum” (henceforth “Multinet”). Multinet has had Wi-Fi and 3G/4G services since January 2019. Unlike the cited natural experiment studies above, this study does not use longitudinal data. It is a natural experiment study assuming Nonet as the control group and Multinet as the treatment group. Fortuitously, the two valleys offer an exceptional case for examining the impacts of internet access, specifically the impacts of social media use on villagers with internet access. Both valleys are situated at the far end of the Ghanche District of the Gilgit-Baltistan region, Pakistan. Nonet valley is located at an elevation of about 8,500 feet and consists of five small villages (Mason, 1938). Multinet valley refers to three villages with steady and stable internet signal connections due to their geographical proximity to the telecommunication towers. According to local administration, Nonet and Multinet comprise 544 and 1,078 households, respectively. Villagers of both valleys are followers of the Shia and Noorbakshia denominations of Islam. The population of the Gilgit-Baltistan region is Muslim, mainly where the two valleys are located, which severely limits any opportunities for direct in-person contact with the members of other religious groups.

Using this unique context, we investigate the knowledge and engagement levels of the villagers from Multinet and Nonet regarding religious minorities. Although the extant literature suggests that social media platforms facilitate democratic development, studies from the American and European contexts dominate the field (Bode, 2015; Gil de Zúñiga & Diehl, 2018; Placek, 2016; Rojas & Valenzuela, 2019). Besides, prior studies from Pakistan have mainly focused on mainstream news media’s portrayal of non-Muslims (Ambreen, 2014; Khoso, 2015) and identity-related issues of non-Muslims (Alam, 2021; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2019; Schoemaker, 2016). Moreover, although some scholars have studied religious tolerance (Kalin & Siddiqui, 2017; Widmalm, 2016), they did not account for the potential role of social media. Thus, there is a general lack of research on how the increasing digital connectivity and social media use in Pakistan may impact interfaith relations. Following the earlier discussions, we propose two research questions:

RQ1: How much knowledge do residents from Multinet, and Nonet villages have about religious minorities? How much do they engage with religious minorities? What potential role do social media platforms play in these processes and activities?

RQ2: More specifically, what is the role of serendipitous exposure and interfaith contact on social media in knowledge acquisition and personal engagement regarding religious minorities?

Method

Data Collection

We chose an interview method instead of a survey to gain a more in-depth understanding of the lived experiences and perspectives of villagers. Purposive and snowball sampling (that started with the personal contacts of the first author and research assistant) techniques were used to recruit interviewees, maximizing variety sampling. The sampling frame included only those villagers who had not spent more than 1 year outside their valleys or, at least, outside the Gilgit-Baltistan region. Thirty-eight semistructured interviews were conducted (19 from each valley) and audio recorded from May to August 2020. Five interviews were first conducted in April 2020 as part of the pilot test. Interviews were conducted with the help of a male research assistant with a master’s degree in social science and research experience from a reputable institution in Pakistan. Furthermore, the first author of the study is originally from the Gilgit-Baltistan region and has firsthand knowledge about both valleys’ socioeconomic, cultural, and historical backgrounds, which significantly helped to understand the context and interpret the interview findings.

Interviews were conducted in the Balti language—a Tibetan dialect spoken in both valleys (Sprigg, 1980). Interviewees were first introduced to the study and its intended scientific outcomes. Then, they were requested to fill out a consent form and informed about using pseudonyms to conceal their real identities. All of them voluntarily participated and did not receive any compensation. Adults of different ages, education, occupations, and income groups were interviewed (see Table 1). Regular/active social media users were purposively targeted in Multinet. Those who regularly/actively use social media reported spending more than 3–4 hr daily on social media. Unfortunately, we could only interview males due to religious and cultural constraints. First, females were reluctant to participate in the study, especially with a male interviewer. However, when some potential female participants were approached with the help of local female teachers (in positions of power), they still refused to participate. During this process, it was noticed that most females from the Multinet valley do not even own phones or smartphones. Some females said they have a phone at home, managed by the head of the family, usually a man. A few of them also stated that they do not use a phone because they do not have any contacts or activities outside their valley. Prior studies in Islamic societies, including Pakistan, have found that Muslim parents believe women should not use social media (Costa, 2018; Jamil, 2021; Schoemaker, 2016). Such cultural patterns have also been reported in non-Islamic contexts, such as China, where smartphones are believed to be associated with losing control over women (Pei & Chib, 2020). Moreover, a recent report shows that 78.5% of men in Pakistan use social media compared to 21.4% of women (DataReportal, 2022), revealing significant gender digital divide. This gap is likely to be more salient in rural areas of Pakistan (Galpaya et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Demographics of interviewees.

No.	Age	Education	Monthly income	Occupation	Marital status
Nonet Valley
1	45	Graduate	Rs. 37,001 or more	Government employee	Married
2	42	Graduate	Rs. 37,001 or more	Government employee	Married
3	25	Graduate	Rs. 16,001–20,000	Small-scale businessman	Married
4	42	Intermediate	Rs. 37,001 or more	Government employee	Married
5	38	Postgraduate	—	Government employee	Married
6	35	Matric	Rs. 14,001–16,000	Unskilled worker	Married
7	33	Middle	Rs. 20,001–37,000	Government employee	Married
8	28	Postgraduate	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Small-scale businessman	Married
9	35	Illiterate	Rs. 16,001–20,000	Unskilled worker	Married
10	50	Illiterate	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Farmer	Married
11	19	Matric	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Small-scale businessman	Single
12	30	Primary	Rs.11,001–14,000	Unskilled worker	Married
13	26	Matric	Rs. 14,001–16,000	Unskilled worker	Married
14	30	Middle	Rs. 14,001–16,000	Skilled worker	Married
15	35	Matric	Rs. 20,001–37,000	Small-scale businessman	Married
16	30	Matric	Rs. 5,000 or less	Government employee	Married
17	25	Graduate	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Private employee	Married
18	23	Matric	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Unskilled worker	Single
19	24	Matric	Rs. 37,001 or more	Skilled worker	Married
Multinet Valley
20	26	Matric	Rs. 20,001–37,000	Private employee	Married
21	26	Postgraduate	—	Unemployed	Single
22	24	Intermediate	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Small-scale businessman	Married
23	23	Matric	Rs. 16,001–20,000	Government employee	Married
24	42	Intermediate	Rs. 37,001 or more	Large-scale businessman	Married
25	30	Graduate	Rs. 5,000 or less	Small-scale businessman	Single
26	30	Matric	Rs. 14,001–16,000	Private employee	Married
27	24	Intermediate	Rs. 16,001–20,000	Small-scale businessman	Married
28	36	Postgraduate	Rs. 20,001–37,000	Government employee	Married
29	25	Postgraduate	Rs. 20,001–37,000	Government employee	Married
30	20	Graduate	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Private employee	Single
31	32	Intermediate	Rs. 14,001–16,000	Private employee	Married
32	19	Graduate	Rs. 16,001–20,000	Small-scale businessman	Married
33	60	Middle	Rs. 20,001–37,000	Government employee	Married
34	32	Matric	Rs. 37,001 or more	Large-scale businessman	Married
35	32	Matric	Rs. 5,001–11,000	Private employee	Married
36	33	Intermediate	Rs. 14,001–16,000	—	—
37	39	Postgraduate	Rs. 37,001 or more	Government employee	Married
38	40	Postgraduate	Rs. 37,001 or more	Government employee	Married

Our interview guide included high-level questions (see attached Appendix) about whether interviewees have information/experiences related to religious minorities—whether in online and/or offline settings. In addition to the high-level questions, we ensured the interview process was open to new perspectives—openness to pursue new directions. We also minimized distraction during interviews and ensured interviewees felt actively listened to and comfortable with the interview context by allowing them to select the interview place, such as at their home, shop, or an open area in the village.

Analytical Framework

Interviews were thoroughly and critically analyzed in an iterative style to find latent themes. The analysis took place by listening and relistening to interviews and reading and re-reading the transcripts multiple times to acquire an overall understanding of the unfolded narratives. Emerging themes were compared within and between interviews to observe patterns, overarching topics, and categories. Initial codes were recorded, combined, and categorized to form thematic and sub-thematic concepts, such as incidental exposure and Facebook friends, by gradually comparing the emerging new codes with the old ones (Glaser, 1965). These steps directed the initial analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to make sense of the early transcript readings.

Results

In response to how villagers keep themselves updated about what is happening in Pakistan, particularly about religious issues and religious minorities, most villagers (i.e., the interviewees) from Nonet said that they learn through offline religious events, in-person discussions, and traditional media, such as satellite TV. On the other hand, most villagers from Multinet mentioned social media as their primary source of information about religious issues and religious minorities. Interestingly, five villagers from Nonet also revealed that they occasionally use social media when they leave their native valley for work and business. These five villagers have smartphones and social media accounts but can only use them when they travel to lower valleys (such as Multinet) and places with internet access. We called these five interviewees “occasional social media users” compared to (regular/active) social media users from Multinet. For instance, 35-year-old Kamran said, “I use the internet when sometime I go to other valleys or cities with internet access.” These five villagers from Nonet were not purposefully sampled for the study, but they revealed their experiences during interviews. Thus, 24 of the total 38 interviewees were social media users—all 19 regular users from Multinet and five occasional users from Nonet. Facebook was the most popular social network site among them. Villagers mostly use social media for recreational, relational, and informational purposes. Most importantly, villagers do not intentionally seek content on social media related to religious Others but sometimes come across it inadvertently.

The Difference in Engagement and Knowledge Levels Between Nonet and Multinet Villagers

Most villagers from the Multinet (i.e., 14 of them) expressed their willingness to participate in civic action regarding religious minorities more than their counterparts from Nonet (only 8, and 3 of them were occasional social media users). Specifically, except for those who indicated no interest in overall civic activities, most interviewees who use social media were more likely to participate in a protest or rally to safeguard religious minorities in the country. According to most of them, religious minorities are equally Pakistani like themselves and have the same citizenship rights as the religious majority. 45-year-old Ibrahim said, “I will participate for their basic human rights because they are also fellow citizens like us.” 32-year-old Jaffer echoed Ibrahim, “I will participate because they are also our respected citizens, a part of our country, and Pakistani.” A few also showed an interest in participating for humanitarian reasons. 19-year-old Ali said, “if a non-Muslim is being oppressed, we must protect him or her as a human being, regardless of faith.” Likewise, 38-year-old Hassan shared, “if minorities in our country are having problems and a protest is being held for their basic rights, I will surely join in on humanitarian grounds.” Echoing Ali and Hassan, 24-year-old Dawud stated, “I will engage in such protests because I believe it is my responsibility as a human to do so.” However, most villagers from Nonet showed that they are not willing to engage in protests. For instance, 45-year-old Rayaan said he would not participate “because there is no relation and connection between them and us.” 42-year-old Imran said, “I will not participate in any kind of protest because we have different religions, ideologies, and beliefs.”

Speaking of knowledge, villagers from Nonet were mostly unaware of religious minorities in the country. For instance, 35-year-old Hassan said, “I do not have any source of information about the minorities in Pakistan, so I do not know anything about them.” Echoing Hassan, 30-year-old Abbas added, “as we do not have any exposure to meeting any non-Muslim (both online and offline), I do not have any information about them.” 35-year-old Kaleem expressed, “I have no information about other religions; I am completely blank.” On the other hand, villagers from Multinet who use social media were more informed (knowledgeable) about non-Muslims in Pakistan mainly Hindu and Christian communities. Many, for example, shared the names of non-Muslim politicians and elites. To name a few, Shahbaz Bhatti (a Christian who served as the first Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs and was assassinated in 2011); Gurdeep Singh (the first turban-wearing Sikh senator from KPK province); and Rana Bhagwandas (the first Hindu to serve as the chief of the highest court in Pakistan). In addition, aside from those who said they are not interested in religious issues, most shared their views and stories about major recent “injustice incidents” involving religious minorities. For instance, 30-year-old Ikram believes that the non-Muslims in Pakistan face many extremist challenges. He said religious minorities “cannot have freedom like Muslims because of the individuals with extremist mindsets, and many people have recently criticized the construction of a temple in Islamabad.” To give some context, there was a dispute over the construction of the first temple for the Pakistani Hindu community in the country’s capital during the data collection time. The controversy created a debate online on the status of religious minorities in Pakistan (Tanzeem, 2020). 32-year-old Josef said, “there are extremist groups that harm Islam and other religions, and they think they are only right, and the rest of the world is wrong. . . extremism is the main problem that non-Muslims face in Pakistan.” Talking about the temple issue in Islamabad, a 35-year-old progressive villager Taha expressed:

“People are happy when a mosque is built in a non-Muslim majority country, but critical when a church or a temple is built in our country. It shows the mindset of extremists who do not think about the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan.”

The general response from interviewees who regularly use social media was that extremism is a major problem for religious minorities. At the same time, some villagers said that they are not interested in topics related to religious minorities, implying that individuals’ interest is a critical factor independent of internet access. For instance, 19-year-old Ali from Multinet shared, “to be very honest, I do not have an interest in discussing religion.” Likewise, 30-year-old Kazim from Nonet said, “I am not interested in any other religion, neither in Pakistan nor in any other part of the world.” Therefore, the mere availability of digital information technologies may not be sufficient to stimulate specific uses; human interest and capacity are equally vital to take into consideration (Min, 2010; Norris, 2001). However, it could still be argued that people with internet access have more opportunities to serendipitously come across information, which could potentially raise interest. 32-year-old Josef from Multinet said, “I do not have any interest in seeking information about religious minorities, I personally never tried to learn about them, but sometimes I get to see related news on social media.” Next, we show how our interviewees serendipitously come across information about religious minorities on social media, primarily via Facebook. For some of our interviewees, it was an unplanned and unexpected discovery of information about religious minorities and their lives on social media. However, villagers from Nonet simply do not have a chance to come across information related to religious minorities because they lack internet access, and there are no religious minorities in their valleys, meaning they have no “tales” to share about their serendipitous exposure experiences. For instance, 50-year-old Salman from Nonet said, “we do not have any opportunity to connect or interact with religious minorities.” Extending Salman’s point, 33-year-old Yousuf from Nonet shared, “I have never been to cities, so I do not have any exposure to seeing any non-Muslim. I have no experience with their culture and interaction with them.” Therefore, the following discussion mainly focuses on the interviewees who use social media, mainly from Multinet.

Social Media Experiences of Villagers Related to Religious Minorities

Serendipitous Exposure on Facebook

Villagers from Multinet like 32-year-old Josef said, “I do not look for any content about religious minorities on Facebook, but I come across news and information about them when I am scrolling on Facebook. That is how I have learned about them.” 45-year-old Ibrahim added, “I do not often encounter content about religious minorities on social media, but sometimes, you know, it just pops up.” 39-year-old Musa echoed Josef and Ibrahim, “I do not need to know about religious minorities, so I do not use social media for that reason, but I occasionally come across information about them while I am looking for something else.” Specifically, 32-year-old Jaffer said,

“I accidentally come across videos about other religious groups when my Facebook friends share on their timelines. I do not intentionally seek such content. I do not like to engage in anything related to religion or religious issues. It is just not my thing.”

Similarly, 19-year-old Ali,

“I am not interested in anything related to religions or religious groups. That is why I do not look for content related to members of other faiths and their lives on social media. But, you know, I inadvertently get to know about these topics, mostly when my friends on social media like and share content related to religious minorities.”

In short, the internet and social media are key sources of information for our interviewees (with social media) about other religious communities in Pakistan despite not intentionally wanting and actively looking for such content when they go online. When they were asked about their sources of knowledge about religious minorities, they mentioned “mainly social media.” However, they repeatedly acknowledged that they do not intentionally seek information about non-Muslims in Pakistan on social media. Almost everyone said, “I do not search or look for such content on social media” (e.g., 25-year-old Sean). As reported in multiple recent studies, the phenomenon of encountering new valuable information and gaining knowledge without intentionally seeking it can be referred to as serendipitous exposure (Race & Makri, 2016; Reviglio, 2019; Sun et al., 2013; Van Damme et al., 2020) or incidental exposure, a closely related concept in the field of political communication (Fletcher & Nielsen, 2017; Nanz & Matthes, 2020; Scheffauer et al., 2021).

Interestingly, most interviewees could not recall the specific serendipitous exposure experiences on social media related to religious minorities. Some villagers claim to have serendipitously come across information about other religions as a result of their involvement with non-news content, such as entertainment, culture, sports, etc. For example, 25-year-old Yahya shared his interfaith serendipitous exposure experience as “I have learned about Hindu culture while watching short funny (i.e., comedy) videos on Facebook made by Indian artists.” Echoing Yahya, 30-year-Ikram, “I have learned about other religions on social media through their religious events, such as Holi (a popular Hindu festival). These are interesting because it is new to me.” 24-year-old Dawud said, “on social media, I learned that one of the former national cricket players, Danish Kaneria (a Pakistani Hindu international cricketer), was from the Hindu community.”

Talking about a recent serendipitous exposure experience, 36-year-old Waleed added, “I do not use social media to seek information about religious minorities. . . but these days, I have seen many news stories on Facebook, especially about the new temple construction in Islamabad.” 25-year-old Sean echoed Waleed, “these days, when I go on Facebook, I come across posts about the temple construction issue in Islamabad. I am learning about these national events while living in this mountainous region.” On the other side, 24-year-old Dawud:

“I have not looked for anything about religious minorities or their religious and political concerns. . . Yet unexpectedly, I found out about the Kartarpur corridor through social media. I learned that we have the Sikh community in our country and that Pakistan is home to one of their holiest shrines. I would say it was such an interesting and positive experience on social media to know about them.”

To give some context, the Kartarpur corridor connects Pakistan and India, allowing Indian Sikh worshippers to visit the Gurdwara Darbar Sahib. 23-year-old Zain from Nonet (who uses Facebook when he travels to Multinet and cities where the internet is accessible) also learned about the Kartarpur corridor through Facebook. He learned that the government facilitated the Sikh community in carrying out their religious activities in complete safety. Zain said, “the government made the process as simple as going to the mosque for a Muslim. The news about the opening of the Kartarpur corridor was posted on Facebook by someone, and I found out about it from there.”

In sum, villagers with internet access use social media to engage in activities unrelated to religious Others. However, they serendipitously get exposed to information about religious minorities. In other words, villagers do not use social media to learn about other faiths, yet information about different religions still reaches them as a byproduct of their social media use. In addition, this could be partly due to the social media networks of the villagers facilitating serendipity. We found that the social media networks of villagers are considerable and consist of many people they have never met in person.

Interfaith Contacts on Facebook

Although outgroup contact has been shown to improve attitudes toward outgroups in the literature (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998), the villagers from both valleys do not have the opportunity to meet people of other faiths in real life. Like face-to-face outgroup contact, social media interfaith contact has also been reported in prior studies to improve interfaith relations (Imperato et al., 2021; Schumann et al., 2012; Schwab et al., 2018; White et al., 2015). Thanks to the internet and social media, villagers can now connect and interact with people worldwide. First, most villagers from Multinet who use Facebook (N = 20 [3 users from Nonet]) more than any other social media platform have a sizable Facebook friend network. Some of them have as many as 5,000 Facebook friends—the maximum number of friends allowed on Facebook. These Facebook friends include people they have never met in person, ranging between 4 and 4,000, demonstrating the size and diversity of their Facebook network. More importantly, some villagers who use Facebook (N = 11 [2 users from Nonet]) also mentioned having non-Muslim Facebook friends they had never met in real life. These non-Muslim Facebook friends range from a single friend to 350 friends. For instance, when 20-year-old Habib was asked about his Facebook friendship network,

“I have 5000 friends on Facebook. I have never met most of them in person, perhaps over 4000. When I first created my Facebook account, I had no idea what a Facebook friend was. Initially, I used to get excited about photos on Facebook. So, I did not check whether I knew the person on Facebook and just kept adding friends. . . non-Muslims make up about 350 to 400 of my Facebook friends. They are also the ones I have never met face-to-face. I believe most of them are Christians. I have 10 to 12 non-Muslim Facebook friends with whom I chat sometimes. We do not discuss religion. I only talked about religion with a Christian Facebook friend once. It was more like a fun conversation than a serious one.”

Likewise, 26-year-old Uzair mentioned that he has around 1,000 Facebook friends, and approximately 100 of them are unknown to him. He also said, “I recently made a new Facebook friend, a non-Muslim girl, but we have not talked yet. I do not remember whether I added her or she added me.” Habib and Uzair both seem to have a similar style of making Facebook friends, as they tend not to care about whom they add to their Facebook network. These villagers’ Facebook friends represent different sociopolitical backgrounds. Such heterogeneous networks would significantly increase their chances of being exposed to novel information serendipitously.

Many villagers who have non-Muslim Facebook friends say they do not chat with their religious other Facebook friends. They are just Facebook friends who occasionally react to each other’s posts or interact in the comment sections. Only a few talk with one another via Facebook inbox about random topics, but they do not talk about religion. 35-year-old Kamran from Nonet said (who occasionally uses Facebook when he travels to lower valleys and towns where the internet is accessible), “I have around 70 to 80 friends on Facebook, 3 of whom are non-Muslims, and I have never met them. I have talked to them in chat, but we never spoke about religious matters.” Like Kamran, a 23-year-old Zain from Nonet also has friends with 300 people on Facebook, and 150 of them are people he has never met, including 50 non-Muslim Facebook friends. He said, “I chat with 10 to 12 non-Muslim Facebook friends. We talk about each other’s countries.” Zain said his non-Muslim friends are from different countries, such as China and the United States. 24-year-old Dawud has 100–150 non-Muslim Facebook friends he has never met. They are primarily from other countries. He occasionally chats with his non-Muslim Facebook friends about what they do in their lives and where they live, but never about their religion or religious beliefs. 23-year-old Azar echoed Dawud and Zain,

“I have around 4000 Facebook friends, including 200 non-Muslims. 3000 Facebook friends are people I have never met in person. I mostly exchange conversations with my non-Muslim Facebook friends in the comments section of Facebook posts and sometimes on Messenger. I talk to some of my non-Muslim Facebook friends just to get to know them, but I do not chat about religion. They like and comment on my post. I think one is from Paris, France, and another is from Switzerland.”

Finally, those who interact with non-Muslim Facebook friends from abroad use the English language. Google Translate is used by some villagers who do not have a good command of the English language. 32-year-old Jaffer has around 4,800 Facebook friends, about 2,500 of whom are unknown to him, including some non-Muslim Facebook friends from abroad. He said, “I have never chatted due to the language difference. I tried to chat a few times but could not understand their responses.” 24-year-old Dawud shared a similar story, “they message me in English, which I do not understand, and I fail to communicate with them appropriately. I am slowly learning how to use translation apps.” It implies that having friendships but a lack of interfaith conversation on Facebook may be due to a language barrier rather than other factors, such as religious differences.

Discussion

Thus far, the scholarship on interfaith relations has paid little attention to the role of social media in fostering knowledge and engagement related to religious Others. Relying on a unique methodological approach, combining a natural experiment design and an interview method, we compared interviewees from two adjacent remote valleys in the Himalayas of Pakistan—one with internet access and the other without. In particular, this study looked at whether access to the internet, focusing on social media use, facilitates knowledge about and engagement with religious Others. We found that active social media users (i.e., interviewees) from Multinet valley serendipitously learn about other faiths, their religious practices, and, importantly the challenges of religious minorities in Pakistan. The unintentional positive exposure or experiences on social media about other religions and religious Others may encourage social media users from Multinet to manifest more democratic attitudes and behaviors. In short, this study relied on the concept of serendipitous exposure (e.g., Race & Makri, 2016; Reviglio, 2019; Van Damme et al., 2020) and interfaith contact (e.g., Lissitsa, 2016; White et al., 2015) as the macro theoretical framework for explaining knowledge and engagement of the interviewees from Multinet regarding religious minorities compared to those from Nonet valley. First, we found that social media users serendipitously encounter or come across information about different religious groups as a byproduct of their unrelated social media activities. Second, most of the villagers from the Multinet have Facebook friends belonging to other religions, which conceivably would increase their chances of serendipitous exposure to information about religious Others and their religions. The internet is like a new “tea shop” for these Muslim villagers. Most villagers go online without clearly knowing what types of content they will find or whom they will meet or connect with, which might be anyone from “a non-Muslim” to “a foreigner” to “a girl” or “someone with these three backgrounds.” Although there is no common language between villagers and their non-Muslim Facebook friends that they can use to easily communicate with each other, social cues on social media are important keys for them to understand each other and have pleasant experiences.

The current discourse on social media comprises both dystopic warnings and utopian promises—a social media paradox. Our findings, demonstrating both serendipitous exposure and interfaith contact on social media, stand against the scholarship suggesting that social media create an echo chamber and information cocoon of like-minded individuals and increase polarization among different social groups (e.g., Sunstein, 2017). Our findings provide a nuanced perspective for understanding everyday social media use patterns that underpin the phenomenon of serendipitous exposure and interfaith contact and the potential democratic implications in a non-Western context. It is conceivable to argue that social media platforms enable previously unconnected social groups to communicate and socialize with each other irrespective of physical, temporal, ideological, and religious barriers. As a result, they may also potentially form networks to support each other during hardships. Similar patterns have been reported in other contexts as the collective action of loosely knit online networks of people who never met each other (Poor et al., 2022). In 2020, after laying the foundation for constructing the first Hindu worship place in the capital of Pakistan, extremists spread hate speech against Hindus and vandalized the construction site. This event triggered a pro-minority online discourse about the status of religious minorities and their rights in Pakistan. More specifically, the incident was criticized by civil society members on social media (Tanzeem, 2020), with hashtags such as #MandirTauBanega (i.e., the temple will be built) trending on Twitter. Although primarily organized online, some activists also joined the offline protest in favor of the temple construction (Tanzeem, 2020).

Therefore, we argue that with the arrival of the internet in Pakistan, the acceptance of religious minorities, information about their sacred events, their sociopolitical grievances, and their sociopolitical rights are likely to have increased among the members of the religious majority—Muslims. The flow of information and friendship opportunities on social media is likely to substantially reduce the misconceptions and prejudice against religious minorities. The progress might be slow due to the country’s low internet penetration and literacy rate. Specifically, reducing the digital divide gap and increasing public digital media literacy can potentially improve interfaith relations in religiously diverse Pakistan—where religious minorities represent a tiny segment of the population and face discrimination and persecution.

In sum, this study aimed to deepen our understanding of the democratic impacts of digital connectivity. Using a unique opportunity offered by the mountainous terrain of the region, this study provided a natural experiment allowing us to examine the implications of digital access using interview data. Furthermore, as both valleys are located in remote areas, we have greater confidence in the findings because the chances of contamination effects (from other sources of information) are likely to be minimal. Overall, this study adds to the body of scholarship on the development of digital technology and social change, particularly aiding our understanding of its impact on minority-majority relations among citizens in a non-Western context.

Finally, it is worth noting that our findings could also be explained by the novelty effect, that is, a tendency of any new technology to initially produce positive impacts on society not because of its intrinsic features but simply because of people’s greater interest and engagement with it. While some scholars argue that new media technologies benefit from the novelty effect (e.g., Bessière et al., 2008; Perse & Dunn, 1998), others disconfirm this idea (Peng & Zhu, 2011). Future studies should explore whether the patterns of findings uncovered in this study could be sustained over an extended time as more population gets online. As the internet is still a new technology in the Multinet valley, and at the national level, only half of the Pakistani population has access to the internet (DataReportal, 2022).

Limitations and Recommendations

The study does not attempt to make large-scale claims despite the rare opportunities offered by the research setting. There are several limitations to be aware of. While we used snowball and purposive sampling methods, and the interviewees represent a wide range of social strata in terms of age, education, occupation, and income, a more systematic sampling method is suggested to use in future studies or conduct a representative survey. Also, focusing on the younger generation, such as those aged 14 to 17, may reveal new insights. In addition, an ethnographic study would greatly expand the current research—like Costa’s (2018) fieldwork on Facebook use in Turkey. In terms of the valleys’ context, although two-thirds of the Pakistani population still live in rural areas, generalizing the findings should be done with caution because Nonet and Multinet valleys are unique compared to other rural areas. For example, the entire Gilgit-Baltistan region, including the Multinet and Nonet, is populated by Muslims. The region also has a significantly lower crime rate than the rest of the country (Abbasi, 2016; Abdani, 2017). Moreover, the residents of the two valleys are Shia and Noorbakshia Muslims. Compared to Sunni Muslims, who comprise more than 75% of the population, they represent the minority denominations of Islam in Pakistan. In particular, the Shia community has experienced numerous deadly attacks, costing thousands of innocent lives. Because of this, the Shia community generally may empathize more with non-Muslims, thus showing greater acceptance. Furthermore, since all interviewees were male, we also lack data about how the internet and social media use impact the lives of females in the valleys. Finally, caution should be taken in making technologically deterministic inferences. Although the Nonet valley could be referred to as a control group, it is problematic to argue that changes in the Multinet valley are purely due to internet access. One way to lessen such criticisms is to highlight specific types of social media activities and practices that facilitate greater interfaith tolerance and contribute to the potential strengthening of democratic citizenship in non-Western contexts.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their generous suggestions and to Dr. Barui Waruwu for reviewing the earlier version of the manuscript and providing valuable comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received partial financial support from the City University of Hong Kong and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Masood

Author Biographies

Muhammad Masood is a PhD candidate at the Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong. His research and teaching interests focus on civic and political implications of digital media technologies, including civic engagement, political communication, public opinion, misinformation, and intergroup relations.

Marko M. Skoric (PhD/University of Michigan) is an associate professor at the Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong. Marko’s teaching and research interests are focused on new media and social change, with particular emphasis on civic and political implications of new communication technologies.

References

Abbasi

(2016, April 16). Crime rate shows marked decrease in 2015. The News International. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/113087-Crime-rate-shows-marked-decrease-in-2015

Abdani

A. H.

(2017, September 18). District sans crime. Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1358350

Ahmadi

Wohn

D. Y.

(2018). The antecedents of incidental news exposure on social media. Social Media + Society, 4(2), 205630511877282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118772827

Ahmed

Gil-Lopez

(2022). Incidental news exposure on social media and political participation gaps: Unraveling the role of education and social networks. Telematics and Informatics, 68(3), Article 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101764

Alam

(2021). Religious identity and politics: Exploring the causes of the political persecution of religious minorities in Kohat District, Pakistan. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 7, 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057891121997577

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Perseus Books.

Ambreen

(2014). Representation of religious minorities in Pakistani print media: A study of Daily Dawn, the News and the Nation. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(1), 140–156. http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_1_January_2014/15.pdf

Bessière

Kiesler

Kraut

Boneva

B. S.

(2008). Effects of internet use and social resources on changes in depression. Information, Community & Society, 11(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701858851

Bode

(2015). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149

10.

Charlton

Gunter

Hannan

(2002). Broadcast television effects in a remote community. Taylor & Francis.

11.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Corbin

Strauss

(Eds.), Strategies for qualitative data analysis (pp. 65–86). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

12.

Costa

(2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3641–3656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818756290

13.

DataReportal. (2022). Digital 2022 Pakistan. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-pakistan

14.

Dilawri

Salim

Ishfaq

Saleem

(2014, December 9). Searching for security: The rising marginalization of religious communities in Pakistan. Minority Rights Group International. https://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/mrg-searching-for-security-pakistan-report.pdf

15.

Fletcher

Nielsen

R. K.

(2017). Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2450–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817724170

16.

Freedom House. (2022, January 01). Freedom in the world 2022—Pakistan. https://freedomhouse.org/country/pakistan/freedom-world/2022

17.

Fuchs

M. M.

Fuchs

S. W.

(2019). Religious minorities in Pakistan: Identities, citizenship and social belonging. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 43(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2020.1695075

18.

Galpaya

Zainudeen

Amarasinghe

(2018, November 5). AfterAccess: ICT access and use in Pakistan and the Global South. LIRNEasia. https://lirneasia.net/2018/11/afteraccess-ict-access-and-use-in-pakistan-and-the-global-south-presentation/

19.

Gil de Zúñiga

Diehl

(2018). News finds me perception and democracy: Effects on political knowledge, political interest, and voting. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1253–1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818817548

20.

Glaser

B. G.

(1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1965.12.4.03a00070

21.

Heiss

Matthes

(2019). Does incidental exposure on social media equalize or reinforce participatory gaps? Evidence from a panel study. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2463–2482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819850755

22.

Ikeda

Richey

(2009). The impact of diversity in informal social networks on tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123408000574

23.

Imperato

Schneider

B. H.

Caricati

Amichai-Hamburger

Mancini

(2021). Allport meets internet: A meta-analytical investigation of online intergroup contact and prejudice reduction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 81(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.01.006

24.

Ispahani

(2017). Purifying the land of the pure: A history of Pakistan’s religious minorities. Oxford University Press.

25.

Jamil

(2021). From digital divide to digital inclusion: Challenges for wide-ranging digitalization in Pakistan. Telecommunications Policy, 45(8), 102206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102206

26.

Kalin

Siddiqui

(2017). National identity, religious tolerance, and group conflict: Insights from a survey experiment in Pakistan. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 37(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894217724568

27.

Khoso

(2015). Risks: Newspapers’ representation of violence against minority group in Pakistan. Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.17576/jkmjc-2015-3102-25

28.

Kim

(2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001

29.

Kim

Chen

H. T.

De Zúñiga

H. G.

(2013). Stumbling upon news on the Internet: Effects of incidental news exposure and relative entertainment use on political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.005

30.

Lev-On

Lissitsa

(2015). Studying the coevolution of social distance, offline-and online contacts. Computers in Human Behavior, 48(7), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.009

31.

Lissitsa

(2016). Online political participation, online contacts with out-groups members and social distances. Asian Journal of Communication, 27(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2016.1257033

32.

Lissitsa

Kushnirovich

(2019). Harnessing digital media in the fight against prejudice: Social contact and exposure to digital media solutions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(4), 1052–1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019837938

33.

Lee

J. K.

(2018). Stumbling upon the other side: Incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818793421

34.

Mason

(1938). Karakoram nomenclature. The Geographical Journal, 91(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/1788003

35.

Masood

Xiang

Skoric

Ahmed

(2022). Trust in religious others: A three-way interaction model of religious bias, informational use of digital media, and education. International Journal of Communication, 16, 3402–3421. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18636

36.

Min

S. J.

(2010). From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903109402

37.

Nanz

Heiss

Matthes

(2020). Antecedents of intentional and incidental exposure modes on social media and consequences for political participation: A panel study. Acta Politica, 57(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00182-4

38.

Nanz

Matthes

(2020). Learning from incidental exposure to political information in online environments. Journal of Communication, 70(6), 769–793. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa031

39.

Norris

(2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.

40.

Pei

Chib

(2020). Beyond the gender (dis) empowerment dichotomy: The mobile phone as social catalyst for gender transformation in the Global South. New Media & Society, 23(3), 578–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820905295

41.

Peng

T. Q.

Zhu

J. J.

(2011). A game of win-win or win-lose? Revisiting the internet’s influence on sociability and use of traditional media. New Media & Society, 13(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444810375976

42.

Perse

E. M.

Dunn

D. G.

(1998). The utility of home computers and media use: Implications of multimedia and connectivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159809364461

43.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

44.

Placek

M. A.

(2016). #Democracy: Social media use and democratic legitimacy in Central and Eastern Europe. Democratization, 24(4), 632–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2016.1202929

45.

Poor

Skoric

Lampe

(2022). Death of a child, birth of a guild: Factors aiding the rapid formation of online support communities. The Information Society, 38(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2022.2071219

46.

Race

T. M.

Makri

(2016). Accidental information discovery: Cultivating serendipity in the digital age. Elsevier.

47.

Reviglio

(2019). Serendipity as an emerging design principle of the infosphere: Challenges and opportunities. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9496-y

48.

Rogers

E. M.

(1995). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.

49.

Rohman

(2020). The emergence, peak, and abeyance of an online information ground: The lifecycle of a Facebook group for verifying information during violence. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(3), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24402

50.

Rohman

Ang

P. H.

(2019). Truth, not fear: Countering false information in a conflict. International Journal of Communication, 13, 4586–4601. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10912/2801

51.

Rohman

Pang

Pitaloka

(2018). The episodes of a Facebook group for information sharing in the Ambon 2011 conflict prevention movement, Indonesia. Information, Communication & Society, 23(4), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1521456

52.

Rohman

Pitaloka

(2020). A blast from the past: Memories, social media, and peace movement. The Communication Review, 23(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2020.1829304

53.

Rojas

Valenzuela

(2019). A call to contextualize public opinion-based research in political communication. Political Communication, 36(4), 652–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1670897

54.

Scheffauer

Goyanes

de Zúniga

H. G.

(2021). Beyond social media news use algorithms: How political discussion and network heterogeneity clarify incidental news exposure. Online Information Review, 45(3), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-04-2020-0133

55.

Schoemaker

(2016). Digital faith: Social media and the enactment of religious identity in Pakistan [Doctoral dissertation, The London School of Economics and Political Science]. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3578/1/Schoemaker_digital_faith%20.pdf

56.

Schumann

van der Linden

Klein

(2012). Bridging the gap on Facebook: Assessing intergroup contact and its effects for intergroup relations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0569

57.

Schwab

A. K.

Sagioglou

Greitemeyer

(2018). Getting connected: Intergroup contact on Facebook. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(3), 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1489367

58.

Sekhon

J. S.

Titiunik

(2012). When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1489367

59.

Shaikh

(2018). Making sense of Pakistan. Oxford University Press.

60.

Sprigg

R. K.

(1980). Vowel harmony in noun-and-particle words in the Tibetan of Baltistan. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 43(3), 511–519. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x00137413

61.

Sun

Zhang

Mei

(2013). Unexpected relevance: An empirical study of serendipity in retweets. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 7(1), 592–601. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14435

62.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.

63.

Tamsut

(2015, December 2). #IStandWithAhmadis: Pakistanis show support for religious minority on social media. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/istandwithahmadis-pakistanis-show-support-for-religious-minority-on-social-media/a-18889718

64.

Tanzeem

(2020, July 8). Islamabad demonstrators support construction of Hindu temple. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/islamabad-demonstrators-support-construction-hindu-temple

65.

Tewksbury

Weaver

A. J.

Maddex

B. D.

(2001). Accidentally informed: Incidental news exposure on the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800309

66.

Valeriani

Vaccari

(2016). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1857–1874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616223

67.

Van Damme

Martens

Van Leuven

Vanden Abeele

De Marez

. (2020). Mapping the mobile DNA of news. Understanding incidental and serendipitous mobile news consumption. Digital Journalism, 8(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1655461

68.

White

F. A.

Abu-Rayya

H. M.

Bliuc

A. M.

Faulkner

(2015). Emotion expression and intergroup bias reduction between Muslims and Christians: Long-term Internet contact. Computers in Human Behavior, 53(13), 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.074

69.

Widmalm

(2016). Political tolerance in the global south: Images of India, Pakistan and Uganda. Routledge.

70.

Williams

T. M. B.

(1986). The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities. Academic Press.

71.

Yamamoto

Morey

A. C.

(2019). Incidental news exposure on social media: A campaign communication mediation approach. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 2056305119843619. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119843619

72.

Yusuf

Dragomir

Thompson

Watts

Chan

Y. Y.

Nissen

C. S.

(2013, June 21). Mapping digital media: Pakistan. Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/mapping-digital-media-pakistan

73.

Žeželj

I. L.

Ioannou

Franc

Psaltis

Martinovic

(2017). The role of inter-ethnic online friendships in prejudice reduction in post-conflict societies: Evidence from Serbia, Croatia and Cyprus. Computers in Human Behavior, 76(11), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.041