CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Super-amplifiers! The role of Twitter extended party networks in political elections

Open access
Yoon, Nara, Hemsley, Jeff, Smith, Alexander, Simpson, Ellen, Eakins, James·2022·Policy & Internet
DOI 10.1002/poi3.295
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Modern election campaigns leverage social media and the networks within to get their messages directly out to the public. We use the theory of extended party networks to explore networks of engaged users who extensively amplify messages posted by political candidates. Using Twitter data from the Senate races in the U.S. 2018 midterm election, we build Twitter extended party networks out of dedicated amplifiers to understand how those engaged users associate with the candidate message amplification. Results show that certain super‐amplifiers have a disproportionately large impact on information flows, and that decentralized networks with higher rates of follower reciprocity are associated with higher rates of message diffusion. Our study also finds some support for the idea that super‐amplifiers engage in coordinated efforts to diffuse political messages.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/poi3.295

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Polarized networks are often dominated by actors with a high degree of centrality ('super-amplifiers').

    “Polarized networks are often dominated by actors with a high degree of centrality: "super-amplifiers" (Yoon et al., 2022).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Yoon et al., 2022

    The Introduction says a small number of “super-amplifiers” play an outsized role in spreading candidate messages, and the Results describe the observed networks as highly polarized. But the Super-amplifiers section defines these actors by retweeting behavior, not high degree centrality; the paper also does not establish that polarized networks are often dominated by them generally. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D., & McDonald, D. W. (2015). Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in Twitter. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 839-851.
  2. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: Divided they blog. Proceedings of the WWW2005 Conference's 2nd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem: Aggregation, Analysis, and Dynamics, 43.
  3. Albert, Z. (2020). Partisan policymaking in the extended party network: The case of cap-and-trade regulations. Political Research Quarterly, 73(2), 476-491.
  4. Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1935826.1935845 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bessi, A., & Ferrara, E. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday, 21(11). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2982233
  6. Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in US elections. Oxford University Press.
  7. Boichak, O., Jackson, S., Hemsley, J., & Tanupabrungsun, S. (2018). Automated diffusion? Bots and their influence during the 2016 US presidential election. International Conference on Information, 17-26.
  8. Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1-10.
  9. Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2013). Political networks on Twitter: Tweeting the Queensland state election. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 667-691.
  10. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
  11. Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363-380.
  12. Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695(5), 1-9.
  13. Desmarais, B. A., La Raja, R. J., & Kowal, M. S. (2015). The fates of challengers in US house elections: The role of extended party networks in supporting candidates and shaping electoral outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 194-211.
  14. Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757-774.
  15. Faraway, J. J. (2004). Linear models with R (Vol. 63). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  16. Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96-104.
  17. Gallagher, R. J., Doroshenko, L., Shugars, S., Lazer, D., & Foucault Welles, B. (2021). Sustained online amplification of COVID-19 elites in the United States. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10. 1177/20563051211024957 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Giglietto, F., Righetti, N., Rossi, L., & Marino, G. (2020). It takes a village to manipulate the media: Coordinated link- sharing behavior during 2018 and 2019 Italian elections. Information, Communication & Society, 23(6), 867-891.
  19. Grabowicz, P. A., Ramasco, J. J., Moro, E., Pujol, J. M., & Eguiluz, V. M. (2012). Social features of online networks: The strength of intermediary ties in online social media. PLOS One, 7(1), e29358. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0029358 · DOI
  20. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
  21. Grossmann, M., & Dominguez, C. B. (2009). Party coalitions and interest group networks. American Politics Research, 37(5), 767-800.
  22. Harrigan, N., Achananuparp, P., & Lim, E. P. (2012). Influentials, novelty, and social contagion: The viral power of average friends, close communities, and old news. Social Networks, 34(4), 470-480.
  23. Hekim, H. (2021). Ideological homophily or political interest: Factors affecting Twitter friendship network between politicians. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 18, 1-16.
  24. Hemsley, J. (2016). Studying the viral growth of a connective action network using information event signatures. First Monday, 21(8), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i8 · DOI
  25. Hemsley, J., Garcia-Murillo, M., & MacInnes, I. P. (2018). Tweets that resonate: Information flows and the growth of Twitter's universal basic income discussion space. Policy & Internet, 10(3), 324-346.
  26. Himelboim, I., Sweetser, K. D., Tinkham, S. F., Cameron, K., Danelo, M., & West, K. (2016). Valence-based homophily on Twitter: Network analysis of emotions and political talk in the 2012 presidential election. New Media & Society, 18(7), 1382-1400.
  27. Hong, S., Choi, H., & Kim, T. K. (2019). Why do politicians tweet? Extremists, underdogs, and opposing parties as political tweeters. Policy & Internet, 11(3), 305-323.
  28. Keller, T. R., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2018). Followers, spread the message! Predicting the success of Swiss politicians on Facebook and Twitter. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2056305118765733 · DOI
  29. Koger, G., Masket, S., & Noel, H. (2009). Partisan webs: Information exchange and party networks. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 633-653.
  30. Kovic, M., Rauchfleisch, A., Sele, M., & Caspar, C. (2018). Digital astroturfing in politics: Definition, typology, and countermeasures. Studies in Communication Sciences, 18(1), 69-85.
  31. Kreiss, D. (2012). Taking our country back: The crafting of networked politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. Oxford University Press.
  32. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. 591.
  33. Nyhan, B., & Montgomery, J. M. (2015). Connecting the candidates: Consultant networks and the diffusion of campaign strategy in American congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 292-308.
  34. Ott, R. L., & Longnecker, M. (1993). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Duxbury press Belmont.
  35. Pacheco, D., Hui, P. M., Torres-Lugo, C., Truong, B. T., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2020). Uncovering coordinated networks on social media. arXiv preprint, 16. arXiv:2001.05658. · arXiv
  36. Skinner, R. M., Masket, S. E., & Dulio, D. A. (2012). 527 Committees and the political party network. American Politics Research, 40(1), 60-84.
  37. Stromer-Galley, J. (2014). Presidential campaigning in the internet age (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199731930.001.0001 · DOI
  38. Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., & Chi, E. H. (2010). Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. Social Computing (SocialCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference On, 177-184.
  39. Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2012). New media and political marketing in the United States: 2012 and beyond. Journal of Political Marketing, 11(1-2), 95-119.
  40. Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2015). Follow the leader! Direct and indirect flows of political communication during the 2013 Italian general election campaign. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1025-1042.
  41. Valente, T. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Hampton Press.
  42. Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social networks, 18(1), 69-89.
  43. Vargas, L., Emami, P., & Traynor, P. (2020). On the detection of disinformation campaign activity with network analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Cloud Computing Security Workshop (pp. 133-146).
  44. Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2017). Early detection of promoted campaigns on social media. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 13.
  45. Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2018). Computational propaganda: Political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media. Oxford University Press.
  46. Xu, W. W., Sang, Y., Blasiola, S., & Park, H. W. (2014). Predicting opinion leaders in Twitter activism networks: The case of the Wisconsin recall election. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1278-1293. How to cite this article: Yoon, N., Hemsley, J., Smith, A., Simpson, E., & Eakins, J. (2022). Super-amplifiers! The role of Twitter extended party networks in political elections. Policy & Internet, 14, 711-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.295

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoon, N., Hemsley, J., Smith, A., Simpson, E., & Eakins, J.
Affiliations
  • James Madison University (US)
  • Syracuse University (US)
Corresponding author
Yoon, Nara
ORCID
Venue
Policy & Internet
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-03-21
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
711-730
ISSN
1944-2866 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/poi3.295
OpenAlex
W4220868959
Cited by
18
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Policy & Internet (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
Twitter, 2018 midterm elections, Senate elections, social media campaigning, decentralized networks, information dissemination, political communication

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