CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Social Media and PoliticsMisinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and Politics

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 access
Enjolras, Bernard, Salway, Andrew·2022·Social Network Analysis and Mining
DOI 10.1007/s13278-022-01018-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13278-022-01018-z

Cites

59 of 60 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 2 Twitter-based ideology estimates of candidates by party: Barberá method
Fig. 2 Twitter-based ideology estimates of candidates by party: Barberá methodCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 4 Twitter-based ideology estimates of candidates by party: Halberstam and Knight method
Fig. 4 Twitter-based ideology estimates of candidates by party: Halberstam and Knight methodCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 6 Follower network distribution of homophily (assortative mixing coefficients)
Fig. 6 Follower network distribution of homophily (assortative mixing coefficients)CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 7 Ideological polarization in retweets
Fig. 7 Ideological polarization in retweetsCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 8 Retweet network colored based on ideology
Fig. 8 Retweet network colored based on ideologyCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 9 Cross-ideological retweeting
Fig. 9 Cross-ideological retweetingCC-BY · From the PDF
Image 9
CC-BY · From the PDF

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 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
  2. Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performances in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New Haven
  3. Nunn CZ, Crockett AJ, Williams AJ (1978) Tolerance for non-conformity. Jossey-Bass Publishers
  4. Pariser E (2011) The Filter Bubble. Penguin Books
  5. Sunstein C (2001) Republic. com. princeton. Princeton University Press, NJ

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 22

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Enjolras, B., & Salway, A.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Social Research (NO)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Enjolras, Bernard
ORCID
Venue
Social Network Analysis and Mining
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-12-23
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1869-5450 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-5469
DOI
10.1007/s13278-022-01018-z
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
Licence
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