Investigating Political Polarization on Twitter: A Canadian Perspective
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [100]
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241 · see citing works
Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 · Cited by 6,077 · see citing works
The psychology of social impact
Latané, B. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343 · Cited by 2,864 · see citing works
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Based on the previous literature, such negative interactions between supporters of different parties have shown to reduce enthusiasm about political campaigns in general, and make people less certain about their political beliefs and even postpone the decision to vote (e.g., Hopmann, 2012; McClurg, 2006; Mutz, 2002).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · see citing works
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Lee, C., Shin, J., & Hong, A. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.005 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Lampropoulos, G., Ferdig, R. E., & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4468181 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
North, S., Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2021) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.247 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Expressions of Doubt in Online News Discussions
Evans, A. M., Stavrova, O., Rosenbusch, H., & Brandt, M. J. (2023) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393211034163 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
López-Robles, A. (2023) · Revista de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación · doi:10.24137/raeic.10.19.12 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- 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