Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Open accessAbstract
Political actors and citizens increasingly engage in political conversations on social media outlets such as Twitter. In this paper I show that the structure of the social networks in which they are embedded has the potential to become a source of information about policy positions. Under the assumption that social networks are homophilic, I develop a Bayesian Spatial Following model that scales Twitter users along a common ideological dimension based on who they follow. I apply this network-based method to estimate ideal points for a large sample of Twitter users in the US, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. The resulting positions of the party accounts on Twitter are highly correlated with offline measures based on their voting records and their manifestos. Similarly, this method is able to successfully classify individuals who state their political orientation publicly, and a sample of users from the state of Ohio whose Twitter accounts are matched with their voter registration history. To illustrate the potential contribution of these estimates, I examine the extent to which online behavior is polarized along ideological lines. Using the 2012 US presidential election campaign as a case study, I find that public exchanges on Twitter take place predominantly among users with similar viewpoints.
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.
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?
Latent models can be biased by parameter choices and assumptions and may fall into circular reasoning.
“Latent models can be biased by parameter choices and assumptions and may fall into circular reasoning, such as inferring political positions from network structures and then using those positions to explain the same structures [155].”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [155]
Section 2.3 (Identification; page unavailable) describes how parameter restrictions and starting values affect identification of the latent scale, and Section 2.1 states the model’s key assumption about whom users follow. The paper does not say these choices bias latent models or warn that inferring positions from a network and then using them to explain that same network is circular reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.78)
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.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Bafumi, J., A. Gelman, D. K. Park, and N. Kaplan. 2005. Practical issues in implementing and understanding Bayesian ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 13(2):171-87.
- Bafumi, Joseph, and Michael C. Herron. 2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review 104(3):519-42.
- Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
- ---. 2013b. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 57(2):294-311.
- ---. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58:367-86.
- Boutet, A., H. Kim, E. Yoneki. 2012. What's in your Tweets? I know who you supported in the UK 2010 General Election. Proceedings of Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Palo Alto, California.
- Bryant, J., and D. Miron. 2004. Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication 54(4):662-704.
- Clinton, J., S. Jackman, and D. Rivers. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2):355-70.
- Conover, M., B. Gonc¸alves, J. Ratkiewicz, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. 2010. Predicting the political alignment of Twitter users. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Social Computing. Bethesda, Maryland.
- Conover, Michael D., Bruno Gonc¸alves, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2012. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science 1(1):1-19.
- Conover, M. D., J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Goncalves, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Menlo Park, California.
- Enelow, J. M., and M. J. Hinich. 1984. The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Farrell, H. 2012. The Internet's consequences for politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15:35-52.
- Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11:563-88.
- Garrett, R. K. 2009. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication 59(4):676-99.
- Gelman, A., and J. Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Gelman, A., and D. B. Rubin. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4):457-72.
- Gonzalez, R., R. Cuevas, A. Cuevas, and C. Guerrero. 2011. Where are my followers? Understanding the locality effect in Twitter. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1105.3682. · arXiv
- Hoff, Peter D., Adrian E. Raftery, and Mark S. Handcock. 2002. Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97(460):1090-98.
- Iyengar, Shanto, and Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59(1):19-39.
- Jackman, Simon. 2001. Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: Identification, estimation, inference, and model checking. Political Analysis 9(3):227-41.
- Jessee, S. A. 2009. Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review 103(1):59-81.
- King, A., F. Orlando, and D. B. Sparks. 2011. Ideological extremity and primary success: A social network approach. Chicago, Illinois: Paper presented at the 2011 MPSA Conference.
- Kwak, H., C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 591-600.
- Lax, Jeffrey, and Justin Phillips. 2012. The democratic deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56(1):148-66.
- Linden, W. J., and R. K. Hamlbleton. 1997. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
- Londregan, John. 1999. Estimating legislators' preferred points. Political Analysis 8(1):35-56.
- Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis 10(2):134-53.
- McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415-44.
- Metropolis, N., A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics 21:1087-92.
- Mutz, D. C. 2002. Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review 96(1):111-26.
- Oken Hodas, N., and K. Lerman. 2012. How visibility and divided attention constrain social contagion. College Park, Maryland: Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Social Computing.
- Poole, K. T., and H. Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Shor, B., C. Berry, and N. McCarty. 2010. A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross- institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(3):417-48.
- Stan Development Team. 2012. Stan modeling language: User's guide and reference manual. Version 1.0. Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2008. Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior 30(3):341-66.
- Sunstein, C. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Wu, S., J. M. Hofman, W. A. Mason, and D. J. Watts. 2011. Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Worldwide Web. ACM, 705-14.
- Yardi, S., and D. Boyd. 2010. Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5):316-27.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Barbera, P.
- ORCID
- Barbera, Pablo
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 76-91
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2161834943
- Cited by
- 983
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 153.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1248077)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- Twitter, ideal points, political debate, legislators, political parties, party registration, 2012 presidential election, online political behavior, latent variable models
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