CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective

Urman, Aleksandra·2020·Media, Culture & Society
DOI 10.1177/0163443719876541
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article explores the issue of political polarization on social media. It shows that the intensity of polarization on Twitter varies greatly from one country to another. The analysis is performed using network-analytic audience duplication approach and is based on the data about the followers of the political parties’ Twitter accounts in 16 democratic countries. Based on the topology of the audience duplication graphs, the political Twitterspheres of the countries are classified as perfectly integrated, integrated, mixed, polarized and perfectly polarized. Explorative analysis shows that polarization is the highest in two-party systems with plurality electoral rules and the lowest in multi-party systems with proportional voting. The findings help explain the discrepancies in the results of previous studies into polarization on social media. The results of the study indicate that extrapolation of the findings from single-case studies on the topic is impossible in most cases, suggesting that more comparative studies on the matter are necessary to better understand the subject and get generalizable results.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0163443719876541

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hindman M (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7scb3 (accessed 1 October 2018).
  2. Müller K, Schwarz C (2018) Fanning the flames of hate: social media and hate crime. ID 3082972, SSRN Scholarly Paper, 21 May. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3082972 (accessed 28 September 2018).
  3. Sunstein CR, 2001, Echo Chambers: Bush V. Gore, Impeachment, and beyond

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 109

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Urman, A.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Urman, Aleksandra
ORCID
Urman, Aleksandra
Venue
Media, Culture & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-10-15
Volume
42
Issue
6
Pages
857-879
ISSN
  • 0163-4437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3675
DOI
10.1177/0163443719876541
OpenAlex
W2980432476
Cited by
108
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 4
FWCI
23.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Media Culture & Society (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
political polarization, Twitter, social media, political parties, network topology, two-party system, proportional representation, electoral systems, cross-national comparison, democratic countries

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