CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 625Social Media and PoliticsOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceMisinformation and Its Impacts

Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter

Yardi, Sarita, Boyd, Danah·2010·Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
DOI 10.1177/0270467610380011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The principle of homophily says that people associate with other groups of people who are mostly like themselves. Many online communities are structured around groups of socially similar individuals. On Twitter, however, people are exposed to multiple, diverse points of view through the public timeline. The authors captured 30,000 tweets about the shooting of George Tiller, a late-term abortion doctor, and the subsequent conversations among pro-life and pro-choice advocates. They found that replies between like-minded individuals strengthen group identity, whereas replies between different-minded individuals reinforce in-group and out-group affiliation. Their results show that people are exposed to broader viewpoints than they were before but are limited in their ability to engage in meaningful discussion. They conclude with implications for different kinds of social participation on Twitter more generally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0270467610380011

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Internet connections can create antagonistic and emotional relations and facilitate group polarization, due to algorithmic logic and lack of regulations on several platforms.

    “Furthermore, Internet connections can create antagonistic and emotional relations and facilitate group polarization, due to algorithmic logic and lack of regulations on several platforms (Sarita Yardi and Danah Boyd 2010; Merlyna Lim 2017; Giulia Evolvi 2017).”

    From “Victims of feminism”: exploring networked misogyny and #MeToo in the manosphere (2023) · cites this paper as Sarita Yardi and Danah Boyd 2010

  • Studies on social media have found limited evidence for homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms; users may be unlikely to rebroadcast opposing content but are often exposed to it and may respond.

    “Studies on social media have found limited evidence for the described homogeneous clusters on most social media platforms: while users may be unlikely to rebroadcast content from the opposing side, they are often exposed to it and may even respond (11, 62–69).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [68]

  • The distinct topologies of the retweet and mention networks can be explained in part by politically motivated individuals injecting partisan content into information streams whose primary audience consists of ideologically opposed users.

    “To explain the distinct topologies of the retweet and mention networks we conjecture that politically motivated individuals provoke interaction by injecting partisan content into information streams whose primary audience consists of ideologically-opposed users.”

    From Political Polarization on Twitter (2021) · cites this paper as Yardi and boyd (2010)

  • There is substantial evidence that segregated online communities emerge around politically contentious topics.

    “Although recent evidence suggests that general information consumption on social media might not be an echo-chamber for many users (21, 22), there is nevertheless substantial evidence supporting the argument that segregated online communities emerge around politically contentious topics (23, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 20).”

    From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yardi, S., & Boyd, D.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Microsoft Research New England (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Yardi, Sarita
ORCID
Boyd, Danah
Venue
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-09-14
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
316-327
ISSN
  • 0270-4676 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4183
DOI
10.1177/0270467610380011
OpenAlex
W2063288519
Cited by
625
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 31
FWCI
73.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society (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
group polarization, Twitter, homophily, online communities, group identity, social media debate

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