2014
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12084
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data

Abstract: This paper investigates political homophily on Twitter. Using a combination of machine learning and social network analysis we classify users as Democrats or as Republicans based on the political content shared. We then investigate political homophily both in the network of reciprocated and nonreciprocated ties. We find that structures of political homophily differ strongly between Democrats and Republicans. In general, Democrats exhibit higher levels of political homophily. But Republicans who follow official… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

19
606
4
40

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 930 publications
(669 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
19
606
4
40
Order By: Relevance
“…For same-sex marriage, however, the interaction did not approach statistical significance, although the effect remained in the same direction (IRR = 1.10, P = 0.746, 95% CI = 0.61, 1.98). These findings indicate there may be an in-group advantage (22,33) for moral contagion; that is, moral-emotional language may spread more widely within in-group networks than out-group networks (for a visualization of the retweet network for messages containing moral and emotional language, see Fig. 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For same-sex marriage, however, the interaction did not approach statistical significance, although the effect remained in the same direction (IRR = 1.10, P = 0.746, 95% CI = 0.61, 1.98). These findings indicate there may be an in-group advantage (22,33) for moral contagion; that is, moral-emotional language may spread more widely within in-group networks than out-group networks (for a visualization of the retweet network for messages containing moral and emotional language, see Fig. 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the global Internet is centralized in a few economically and politically dominating nations (Park et al, 2011;Ruiz & Barnett, 2014). Similarly, Facebook friendships and Twitter followings display homophily along similar cultural and socioeconomic attributes-similar patterns are also manifested in the offline world (Barnett & Benefield, 2015;Colleoni, Rozza, & Arvidsson, 2014).…”
Section: Rq5mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main distinctions of several of these models with DMT-Demographic models are that (a) most previous literature use only tweet content analysis to predict demographic information (Nguyen et al, 2013) while our model leverages different modals of user information including profile picture, (b) though some of the works use interesting network information they do not leverage other user details as potential signals (Colleoni et al, 2014;Culotta et al, 2015), (c) many of the models involve a lot of feature engineering like extracting location indicative words for geolocation prediction, etc. (Han et al, 2014;Sloan et al, 2015), (d) our model learns shared and task-specific layer parameters as we handle the demographic prediction Table 3: Task-specific Macro F1-score for different DMT-Demographic models.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%