Polarization on social media: Comparing the dynamics of interaction networks and language‐based opinion distributions
Open accessAbstract
When people share information and converse on social media, they create “echo chambers” through preferential attachment to like‐minded people and opinions they already support. A great deal of research uses interactional ties between people—created by retweeting and following—to identify and study polarization in social networks. Some of this work then uses language analysis to characterize the opinions and concerns of subcommunities in the network. We used machine learning to create “speaker landscapes” that can identify polarization in user language (in tweets about COVID‐19 vaccination) independently of the social networks created by user interactions via retweeting. In contrast to the prevailing assumptions, we found that distances between users in interaction networks did not predict their language similarity very well. We then compared the effect of a polarizing event (the declaration of the COVID‐19 pandemic) on polarization between communities in the retweet networks and the speaker landscapes. We found that retweeting was done both to support and to criticize claims and that polarization between Democrats and Republicans emerged much more strongly in the speaker landscapes than the interaction networks. The results suggest that different cognitive‐motivational dynamics affect who we interact with and what we say on social media, raising questions about how language is used to promote polarization.
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
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.
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
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., et al. (2017) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers
Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., & Lorenz, J. (2017) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3521 · Cited by 601 · see citing works
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Quantifying controversy on social media
Garimella, K., Morales, G. D. F., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Social Computing · doi:10.1145/3140565 · Cited by 348 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One of the most widely used measures, the Random Walk Controversy (RWC) score, estimates the ease with which a random walker starting on a random node within one community can find its way out of that community by traversing randomly selected paths from one node to the next (Garimella et al., 2017).”
Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership.
McGarty, C., Bliuc, A., Thomas, E. F., & Bongiorno, R. (2009) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01627.x · Cited by 333 · see citing works
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In all this interaction, social media users become subject to cognitive-motivational forces related to conformity, persuasion, and group differentiation (Bliuc et al., 2021; González-Bailón & Lelkes, 2023; Jost et al., 2022).”
How social media shapes polarization
Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C., & Sternisko, A. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Burkart, D., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000532 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Analyzing Polarization in Social Media: Method and Application to Tweets on 21 Mass Shootings
Demszky, D., Garg, N., Voigt, R., Zou, J., Shapiro, J., Gentzkow, M., & Jurafsky, D. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1304 · Cited by 164 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…communities focus the attention of different topics and concerns, frame issues differently, vary in their sentiments (e.g., Alamsyah et al., 2024; Demszky et al., 2019; Falkenberg et al., 2022; Karjus & Cuskley, 2024; KhudaBukhsh et al., 2021; Kutlu et al., 2019; Ojea Quintana et al., 2022;…”
Measuring and moderating opinion polarization in social networks
Matakos, A., Terzi, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2017) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-017-0527-9 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C., & Yarchi, M. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120944393 · Cited by 102 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Kligler-Vilenchik et al. (2020) call this interpretive polarization , the “process wherein different groups in a society contextualize a common topic in starkly different ways” (p. 2).”
Brüggemann, M., & Meyer, H. (2023) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtad012 · Cited by 60 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The language people use to express their opinions on social media is arguably even more foundational to polarization than structural divisions in interaction networks (Brüggemann & Meyer, 2023).”
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Durrheim, K., & Schuld, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Johannesburg (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Durrheim, Kevin
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-02-10
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1601-1617
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W4407376293
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 15.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation (137755)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- social media polarization, echo chambers, retweet networks, interaction networks, COVID-19 vaccination, partisanship, Democrats and Republicans, preferential attachment, sub-communities
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
