The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter
Open accessAbstract
Online social media has become an important platform to organize around different socio-cultural and political topics. An extensive scholarship has discussed how people are divided into echo-chamber-like groups. However, there is a lack of work related to quantifying hostile communication or \textit{affective polarization} between two competing groups. This paper proposes a systematic, network-based methodology for examining affective polarization in online conversations. Further, we apply our framework to 100 weeks of Twitter discourse about climate change. We find that deniers of climate change (Disbelievers) are more hostile towards people who believe (Believers) in the anthropogenic cause of climate change than vice versa. Moreover, Disbelievers use more words and hashtags related to natural disasters during more hostile weeks as compared to Believers. These findings bear implications for studying affective polarization in online discourse, especially concerning the subject of climate change. Lastly, we discuss our findings in the context of increasingly important climate change communication research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Tyagi, A., Uyheng, J., & Carley, K. M.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- Pages
- 443-447
- arXiv
- 2008.13051
- OpenAlex
- W3082836236
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 12.18
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (N000141812106,N000141812108)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- affective polarization, climate change discourse, Twitter, climate change denial, echo chambers, social networking sites, hashtags, natural disasters, climate change communication
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
