Cited by 280Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

Investigating Political Polarization on Twitter: A Canadian Perspective

Gruzd, Anatoliy, Roy, Jeffrey·2014·Policy & Internet

Abstract

This article investigates political polarization in social media by undertaking social network analysis of a sample of 5,918 tweets posted by 1,492 Twitter users during the 2011 Canadian Federal Election. On the one hand, we observed a clustering effect around shared political views among supporters of the same party in the Twitter communication network, suggesting that there are pockets of political polarization on Twitter. At the same time, there was evidence of cross-ideological connections and exchanges, which may facilitate open, cross-party, and cross-ideological discourse, and ignite wider debate and learning as they are observed by nonaffiliated voters and the media at large. However, what appeared to be far less likely was any increased willingness or tendency for committed partisans to shift their allegiances as a result of their Twitter engagements, and we postulate that Twitter usage at present is likely to further embed partisan loyalties during electoral periods rather than loosen them; a dynamic that would seemingly contribute to political polarization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/1944-2866.poi354

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Partisan social media users tend to interact across the ideological divide, but this interaction tends to be contentious and conflictual rather than rational deliberation.

    “Research on social media data tells a similar story: while partisan social media users do tend to interact across the ideological divide (62), this interaction is not characterized by rational arguments and deliberation but tends to be contentious and conflictual, suggesting that users may not be engaging in good faith attempts at seeing things through other perspectives (98–100).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gruzd, A., & Roy, J.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Venue
Policy & Internet
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
28-45
ISSN
1944-2866 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1586664008
Cited by
280
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
59.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Policy & Internet (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
political polarization, Twitter, 2011 Canadian federal election, party supporters, partisan loyalty, political communication, online political discourse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review