No abstract

Prior research has indicated that both attitudinal homogeneity of communication networks (“echo chambers”) and attitudinal heterogeneity of communication networks (“adversarial debates”) can lead to attitude polarization. The present paper argues that communication in both echo chambers and adversarial debates is dominated by network negativity, a negative valence in the tone of discussions which might be associated with attitude polarization. Combining methods from sentiment analysis and social network analysis, more than 4 million tweets on two controversial topics (Brexit, Trump) were analyzed to investigate the association between network negativity and two proxies of attitude polarization (extremity and ambivalence). Results indicate that negativity in users’ own tweets was most strongly related to polarization, whereas negativity among users’ friends, or consonance of sentiments between users and friends had less impact on polarization. The findings are related to literatures on negativity bias, optimal distinctiveness theory, and intergroup contact theory.

Online phenomena like echo chambers and belief polarisation are believed to be driven by humans’ penchant to selectively expose themselves to attitudinally congenial content. However, if like-minded content were the only predictor of online behaviour, heated debate and flaming on the Internet would hardly occur. Research has overlooked how online behaviour changes when people are given an opportunity to reply to dissenters, potentially turning a preference for attitudinally congenial information into a preference for uncongenial information. Three main experiments consistently show that in a discussion forum setting where users can respond to earlier posts, larger conflict between user attitude and post attitude predicts higher likelihood to respond. The effect of conflict on response behaviour is shaped by the attitudinal composition of the forum, and it also predicts subsequent polarisation of users’ attitudes. These results suggest that belief polarisation on social media can be driven by conflict rather than congeniality.

No abstract