CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Social Media and PoliticsComplex Network Analysis TechniquesOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter

Open access
Keuchenius, Anna, Törnberg, Petter, Uitermark, Justus·2021·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0256696PMC PMC8407581
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of disagreement between users on social media platforms, studies of online debates typically only look at positive online interactions, represented as networks with positive ties. In this paper, we hypothesize that the systematic neglect of conflict that these network analyses induce leads to misleading results on polarized debates. We introduce an approach to bring in negative user-to-user interaction, by analyzing online debates using signed networks with positive and negative ties. We apply this approach to the Dutch Twitter debate on ‘Black Pete’—an annual Dutch celebration with racist characteristics. Using a dataset of 430,000 tweets, we apply natural language processing and machine learning to identify: (i) users’ stance in the debate; and (ii) whether the interaction between users is positive (supportive) or negative (antagonistic). Comparing the resulting signed network with its unsigned counterpart, the retweet network, we find that traditional unsigned approaches distort debates by conflating conflict with indifference, and that the inclusion of negative ties changes and enriches our understanding of coalitions and division within the debate. Our analysis reveals that some groups are attacking each other, while others rather seem to be located in fragmented Twitter spaces. Our approach identifies new network positions of individuals that correspond to roles in the debate, such as leaders and scapegoats. These findings show that representing the polarity of user interactions as signs of ties in networks substantively changes the conclusions drawn from polarized social media activity, which has important implications for various fields studying online debates using network analysis.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0256696

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Social media is characterized by intense interaction across the political divide.

    “This evidence has been taken to suggest that in contrast to the assumptions of the selective exposure hypothesis, social media is in fact characterized by intense interaction across the political divide (73).”

    From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Results (Coalitions and divisions in the debate; page unavailable) document antagonistic interaction between opposing groups in the Dutch Black Pete debate on Twitter. But the Conclusion and discussion says the study concerns one debate, time period, country, and platform, and leaves broader generalization to future research. It does not establish that social media generally is characterized by intense interaction across political divides. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. R Conte, 2012, Manifesto of computational social science, The European Physical Journal: Special Topics, 214, 325
  2. D Lazer, 2009, Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science, Science, 323, 721, 10.1126/science.1167742 · DOI · Paper page
  3. A Abdul Reda, 2021, Mobilizing the Masses: Measuring Resource Mobilization on Twitter, Sociological Methods and Research, 10.1177/0049124120986197 · DOI
  4. S González-Bailón, 2013, Broadcasters and Hidden Influentials in Online Protest Diffusion, American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 943, 10.1177/0002764213479371 · DOI · Paper page
  5. JA Tucker, 2018, Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature
  6. Garimella K, de Francisci Morales G, Gionis A, Mathioudakis M. Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In: The Web Conference 2018—Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2018. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc; 2018. p. 913–22. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Conover MD, Gonçalves B, Ratkiewicz J, Flammini A, Menczer F. Predicting the political alignment of twitter users. In: Proceedings—2011 IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and IEEE International Conference on Social Computing, PASSAT/SocialCom 2011. Boston, MA, USA; 2011. p. 192–9. · DOI · Paper page
  8. LA Adamic, 2005, The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog, Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery, 36, 10.1145/1134271.1134277 · DOI · Paper page
  9. J Uitermark, 2016, Dissecting discursive contention: A relational analysis of the Dutch debate on minority integration, 1990–2006, Social Networks, 47, 107, 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.05.006 · DOI
  10. AS Waugh, 2009, Party Polarization in Congress: A Network Science Approach
  11. A Hassan, 2012, Extracting Signed Social Networks From Text, Proceedings of the TextGraphs-7 Workshop at ACL, 6
  12. J Leskovec, 2010, Signed networks in social media, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings, 2, 1361, 10.1145/1753326.1753532 · DOI
  13. F Guerrero-Solé, 2017, Community Detection in Political Discussions on Twitter: An Application of the Retweet Overlap Network Method to the Catalan Process Toward Independence, Social Science Computer Review, 35, 244, 10.1177/0894439315617254 · DOI
  14. Lietz H, Wagner C, Bleier A, Strohmaier M. When Politicians Talk: Assessing Online Conversational Practices of Political Parties on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 2014. · DOI · Paper page
  15. G Wekker, 2016, White innocence: Paradoxes of colonialism and race
  16. Y Coenders, 2017, Race and the Pitfalls of Emotional Democracy: Primary Schools and the Critique of Black Pete in the Netherlands, Antipode, 49, 1244, 10.1111/anti.12328 · DOI
  17. PT Metaxas, What Do Retweets Indicate? Results from User Survey and Meta-Review of Research
  18. Soares FB, Recuero R, Zago G. Asymmetric polarization on twitter and the 2018 brazilian presidential elections. In: SMSociety ‘19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society. 2019. p. 67–76. · DOI
  19. P Barberá, 2015, Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?, Psychological Science, 26, 1531, 10.1177/0956797615594620 · DOI · Paper page
  20. I Himelboim, 2016, Valence-based homophily on Twitter: Network Analysis of Emotions and Political Talk in the 2012 Presidential Election, New Media and Society, 18, 1382, 10.1177/1461444814555096 · DOI
  21. Boutet A, Kim H, Yoneki E. What’s in your tweets? I know who you supported in the UK 2010 general election. ICWSM 2012—Proceedings of the 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2012;6(1):411–4.
  22. A Gruzd, 2014, Investigating political polarization on twitter: A Canadian perspective, Policy and Internet, 6, 28, 10.1002/1944-2866.POI354 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Feller A, Kuhnert M, Sprenger T, Welpe I. Divided They Tweet: The Network Structure of Political Microbloggers and Discussion Topics. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; 2011. p. 474–7. · DOI
  24. M Esteve del Valle, 2018, Echo Chambers in Parliamentary Twitter Networks: The Catalan Case, International Journal of Communication, 12, 1715
  25. G Evolvi, 2019, #Islamexit: inter-group antagonism on Twitter, Information, Communication and Society, 22, 386, 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1388427 · DOI · Paper page
  26. R Moernaut, 2020, Hot weather, hot topic. Polarization and sceptical framing in the climate debate on Twitter, Information, Communication and Society, 1, 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1834600 · DOI · Paper page
  27. C Stadtfeld, 2020, The Emergence and Stability of Groups in Social Networks, Social Networks, 60, 129, 10.1016/j.socnet.2019.10.008 · DOI
  28. De Stefano D, Santelli F. Combining sentiment analysis and social network analysis to explore twitter opinion spreading. In: Proceedings—2019 28th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, ICCCN. Valencia, Spain: IEEE; 2019. p. 1–6. · DOI
  29. S Yardi, 2010, Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 316, 10.1177/0270467610380011 · DOI · Paper page
  30. J Tang, 2016, A survey of signed network mining in social media, ACM Computing Surveys, 49, 1, 10.1145/2956185 · DOI
  31. F Heider, 1946, Attitudes and Cognitive Organization, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 21, 107, 10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Guha R, Raghavan P, Kumar R, Tomkins A. Propagation of trust and distrust. In: WWW ‘04: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web. New York, New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2004. p. 403–12. · DOI
  33. Hassan A, Abu-Jbara A, Radev D. Detecting Subgroups in Online Discussions by Modeling Positive and Negative Relations Among Participants. In: EMNLP-CoNLL ‘12: Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. Jeju, Republic of Korea: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2012. p. 59–70.
  34. Leskovec J, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J. Signed networks in social media. In: CHI ‘10: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2010. p. 1361. · DOI
  35. M Sadilek, 2018, Asocial balance—how your friends determine your enemies: understanding the co-evolution of friendship and enmity interactions in a virtual world, Journal of Computational Social Science, 1, 227, 10.1007/s42001-017-0010-9 · DOI
  36. X Zheng, 2015, Social balance in signed networks, Information Systems Frontiers, 17, 1077, 10.1007/s10796-014-9483-8 · DOI
  37. ZP Neal, 2018, A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the U.S. Congress, 1973–2016, Social Networks, 60, 103
  38. J Uitermark, 2016, Dissecting discursive contention: A relational analysis of the Dutch debate on minority integration, 1990–2006, Social Networks, 47, 107, 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.05.006 · DOI
  39. VA Traag, 2009, Community detection in networks with positive and negative links, Physical Review E, 80, 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.036115 · DOI
  40. J Rodenberg, 2016, Essentializing ‘Black Pete’: competing narratives surrounding the Sinterklaas tradition in the Netherlands, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22, 716, 10.1080/13527258.2016.1193039 · DOI
  41. S Hilhorst, 2016, ‘We have given up so much’: Passion and denial in the Dutch Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) controversy, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 19, 218, 10.1177/1367549415603381 · DOI
  42. Y van der Pijl, 2014, Black pete, “smug ignorance,” and the value of the black body in postcolonial Netherlands, NWIG New West Indian Guide, 88, 262, 10.1163/22134360-08803062 · DOI
  43. J Helsloot, 2012, Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands, Quotidian Journal for the study of everyday life, 3
  44. E Borra, 2014, Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets, Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66, 262, 10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094 · DOI
  45. Mustafaraj E, Finn S, Whitlock C, Metaxas PT. Vocal minority versus silent majority: Discovering the opionions of the long tail. In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing. Boston, MA, USA; 2011. p. 103–10. · DOI
  46. A Joulin, 2017, Bag of tricks for efficient text classification, Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2, 427
  47. O Levy, 2015, Improving Distributional Similarity with Lessons Learned from Word Embeddings, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 211, 10.1162/tacl_a_00134 · DOI
  48. Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013—Workshop Track Proceedings. 2013;1–12.
  49. P Bojanowski, 2017, Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5, 135, 10.1162/tacl_a_00051 · DOI · Paper page
  50. VA Traag, 2019, From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities, Scientific Reports, 9, 1, 10.1038/s41598-019-41695-z · DOI · Paper page
  51. Travers J, Milgram S. An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem. In: Social Networks. Elsevier; 1977. p. 179–97. · DOI
  52. AL Barabási, 1999, Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science, 286, 509, 10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · DOI · Paper page
  53. MS Granovetter, 1973, The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360, 10.1086/225469 · DOI · Paper page
  54. PF Lazarsfeld, 1968, The People’S Choice, 10.7312/laza93930 · DOI
  55. F Heider, 1946, Attitudes and Cognitive Organization, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 21, 107, 10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275 · DOI · Paper page
  56. A Bruns, 2014, Twitter data: What do they represent?, it—Information Technology, 56, 10.1515/itit-2014-1049 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keuchenius, A., Törnberg, P., & Uitermark, J.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Keuchenius, Anna
  • Törnberg, Petter
  • Uitermark, Justus
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2021-08-31
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
e0256696
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0256696
PMC
PMC8407581
OpenAlex
W3196934234
Cited by
27
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (732942)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
signed networks, negative ties, online polarization, social media debate, Twitter, retweet networks, network position, scapegoat
MeSH terms
Attitude, Culture, Netherlands, Residence Characteristics, Social Networking, Social Media

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