The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Homophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election
Open accessAbstract
Ideological homophily on social media has been receiving increased scholarly interest, as it is associated with the formation of filter bubbles, echo chambers, and increased ideological polarization. And yet, no linkage necessarily exists between ideological homophily, echo chambers, and polarization. Despite political interactions on social media taking place to a large extent between like-minded individuals, cross-cutting interactions are also frequent. Using Twitter data, we investigated the extent to which ideological homophily, echo chambers, and polarization occur together and characterize the network of political Twitter users during the 2017 election in Norway. Despite the presence of some degree of ideological homophily, we did not find evidence of echo chambers in the Norwegian political Twittersphere during the 2017 election. And yet, the retweet network is characterized by a significant degree of polarization across ideological blocs. Our findings support the thesis according to which polarization on social media may have drivers other than the technological deterministic effect of social media affordances enhancing the formation of online echo chambers.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Network-Level Homophily: Measures the overall homophily of a network to understand the systemic tendencies for like-minded clustering [99,117].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [117]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567
Finding community structure in very large networks
Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., & Moore, C. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.70.066111 · Cited by 7,390
Assortative Mixing in Networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2002) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.208701 · Cited by 5,034
The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa066082 · Cited by 5,007
Newman, M. (2002) · Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · doi:10.1103/physreve.67.026126 · Cited by 3,130
Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098679 · Cited by 2,909
The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment
Centola, D. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185231 · Cited by 2,692
The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005) · Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery · doi:10.1145/1134271.1134277 · Cited by 2,619
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11421 · Cited by 2,575
The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa0706154 · Cited by 2,390
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Huber G, Malhotra N (2013) Dimensions of political homophily: Isolating choice homophily along political characteristics. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA
- Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performances in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New Haven
- Nunn CZ, Crockett AJ, Williams AJ (1978) Tolerance for non-conformity. Jossey-Bass Publishers
- Pariser E (2011) The Filter Bubble. Penguin Books
- Sunstein C (2001) Republic. com. princeton. Princeton University Press, NJ
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59
Li, H. (2024) · Wireless Networks · doi:10.1007/s11276-024-03772-8 · Cited by 55
Larsson, A. O., Tønnesen, H., Magin, M., & Skogerbø, E. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241229156 · Cited by 28
Social Media Ethics: Balancing Transparency, AI Marketing, and Misinformation
Skandali, D. (2025) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia5030086 · Cited by 8
A systematic review on social media echo chambers and political persuasion
Latupeirissa, J. J. P., & Cistadewi, N. M. W. (2025) · Jurnal Studi Komunikasi (Indonesian Journal of Communications Studies) · doi:10.25139/jsk.v9i2.10041 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Enjolras, B., & Salway, A.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Social Research (NO)
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Enjolras, Bernard
- Venue
- Social Network Analysis and Mining
- Published
- 2022-12-23
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1869-5450 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-5469
- OpenAlex
- W4312181503
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 5.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Network Analysis and Mining (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Norges Forskningsråd (NFR: 281194)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, echo chambers, filter bubbles, retweet networks, social media affordances, 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
