A Network Analytic Approach to Understanding Cross-Platform Audience Behavior
Abstract
This article explains and implements a network analytic approach to the study of cross-platform audience behavior. It begins by conceptualizing large-scale patterns of media use in network terms, treating media outlets as nodes and the levels of audience duplication among them as links. Following that, it explains 2 common measures of audience duplication, Absolute Duplication and Primary Duplication, and offers a new measure, Deviation-from-Random Duplication. In doing so, techniques for converting duplication data into network data are discussed. This approach is then applied to analyze patterns of audience fragmentation, media publics, and audience polarization using data from Nielsen's TV/Internet Convergence Panel. The findings show the value of using a network approach, by contributing to an alternative understanding of these patterns. Economic and policy implications are discussed, as well as broader reflections on the use of network analysis in the study of audience behavior.
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?
Estos actores relevantes se convierten en una forma de nuevos medios por su alta incidencia en la audiencia.
“En esencia se convierten en una forma de nuevos medios por su alta incidencia en la audiencia(Ksiazek, 2011).”
From Homofilia, polarización afectiva y desinformación en Twitter. Caso de estudio sobre la crisis migratoria #Openarms (2021) · cites this paper as Ksiazek, 2011
Cites
The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2783 · Cited by 2,869 · see citing works
Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940 · see citing works
The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure
Prior, M. (2009) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfp002 · Cited by 561 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective
Urman, A. (2020) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443719876541 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Castillo-de-Mesa, J., Méndez-Domínguez, P., Carbonero-Muñoz, D., & Gómez-Jacinto, L. (2021) · Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales · doi:10.5565/rev/redes.913 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ksiazek, T. B.
- Affiliations
- Villanova University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ksiazek, Thomas B.
- ORCID
- Ksiazek, Thomas B.
- Venue
- Journal of Media Economics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-11-30
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 237-251
- ISSN
- 0899-7764 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7736
- OpenAlex
- W1965598481
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Media Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- media habits, network analysis, audience fragmentation, media publics, audience polarization, media convergence
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