Measuring Polarization in Twitter Enabled in Online Political Conversation: The Case of 2016 US Presidential Election
Abstract
Political Polarization is the divergence of attitudes toward ideological extremes and it is more likely to happen in groups of like-minded individuals. We measured polarization on Twitter during the 2016 United States Presidential elections, analyzing Twitter backchanneling conversations occurring during the three Presidential debates. The polarization metric we use is based on an existing metaphor of the electric dipole. In each debate the polarization dynamic followed a U-shaped pattern, with polarization being high at the beginning of the debate, decreasing over time, and finally bouncing back to a value that was higher than the initial one. The temporary decline of polarization is due to the increase in interaction with participants holding opposite opinions, but apparently this interaction is more conducive to confrontation than to revision of existing beliefs. We argue that the characteristics of Twitter are generally conducive to polarized and manipulable online debate.
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?
Some studies suggest that the design of the social network can contribute to the echo chamber effect, potentially hindering consensus formation and reinforcing existing beliefs.
“Algunos estudios sugieren que el diseño de la red social puede contribuir al efecto de cámara de eco, dificultando potencialmente la formación de consenso y reforzando las creencias existentes (Du & Gregory, 2017;Primario et al., 2017).”
From Redes de odio y contranarrativas en Twitter sobre el ataque a iglesias católicas en Algeciras: Dinámicas de conectividad, influencia y polarización (2026) · cites this paper as Primario et al., 2017
Polarization is a common phenomenon on Twitter (now X).
“La polarización es un fenómeno común en Twitter (ahora X).”
From Redes de odio y contranarrativas en Twitter sobre el ataque a iglesias católicas en Algeciras: Dinámicas de conectividad, influencia y polarización (2026) · cites this paper as Primario et al., 2017
Cites
Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017) · doi:10.3386/w23258 · Cited by 226 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In particular, Barberà (2015) and Boxell et al. (2017), unlike many other studies, both consider the social media not guilty for the increasing polarization.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rebollo Diaz, C. (2026) · Redes. Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales · doi:10.5565/rev/redes.1130
- Authors
- Primario, S., Borrelli, D., Iandoli, L., Zollo, G., & Lipizzi, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Naples Federico II (IT)
- Stevens Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- 2017 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-08
- Pages
- 607-613
- OpenAlex
- W2770661558
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- political polarization, Twitter, 2016 US presidential election, presidential debates, polarization dynamics, online political discourse, echo chambers, belief revision
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
