In-party love spreads more efficiently than out-party hate in online communities.
Epistemic bubbles
In-party affinity
Out-party hostility
Partisan echo-chambers
Party supply
Polarization
Retweeting
Twitter
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jul 2024
08 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
07
03
2024
accepted:
24
06
2024
medline:
9
7
2024
pubmed:
9
7
2024
entrez:
8
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In this article, we present the findings of a comprehensive longitudinal social network analysis conducted on Twitter across four consecutive election campaigns in Spain, spanning from 2015 to 2019. Our focus is on the discernible trend of increasing partisan and ideological homogeneity within interpersonal exchanges on this social media platform, alongside high levels of networking efficiency measured through average retweeting. This diachronic study allows us to observe how dynamics of party competition might contribute to perpetuating and strengthening network ideological and partisan homophily, creating 'epistemic bubbles' in Twitter, yet showing a greater resistance to transforming them into 'partisan echo-chambers.' Specifically, our analysis reveals that the rise of a new radical right-wing party (RRP), Vox, has heightened ideological homogeneity among users across the entire ideological spectrum. However, this process has not been uniform. While users aligned with mainstream political parties consistently share content that reinforces in-party affinity, resulting in highly efficient 'epistemic bubbles,' the emergence of the RRP has given rise to a distinct group of users associated with the most extreme partisan positions, characterized by a notable proportion of out-partisan hostility content, which has fostered the creation of low-efficient 'partisan echo-chambers.'
Identifiants
pubmed: 38977803
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-65688-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-65688-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15700Subventions
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
ID : PGC2018-093854-B-I00
Organisme : Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte
ID : FPU15/01461
Organisme : Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft
ID : 873927
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
ID : PID2019-106254RB-I00
Organisme : Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
ID : PID2021-122711NB-C21
Organisme : Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
ID : Intense Research Award
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?. Psychol. Sci. 26(10), 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/0956797615594620
pubmed: 26297377
Garrett, R. K. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. J. Commun. 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
Pariser, E. The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think (Penguin Books, 2012).
doi: 10.3139/9783446431164
Costa, M. Ideology, not affect: What Americans want from political representation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65(2), 342–358 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/ajps.12571
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J. & van der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118(26), e2024292118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118 (2021).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024292118
pubmed: 34162706
pmcid: 8256037
Enli, G. & Rosenberg, L. T. Trust in the age of social media: Populist politicians seem more authentic. Soc. Media Soc. 4(1), 2056305118764430. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764430 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2056305118764430
Haselmayer, M., Wagner, M. & Meyer, T. M. Partisan bias in message selection: Media gatekeeping of party press releases. Polit. Commun. 34(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1265619 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2016.1265619
Barberá, P. Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. In Social Media and Democracy, SSRC Anxieties of Democracy (eds Tucker, J. A. & Persily, N.) 34–55 (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
doi: 10.1017/9781108890960.004
Terren, L. & Borge-Bravo, R. Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Rev. Commun. Res. 9, 99–118. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.028 (2021).
doi: 10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.028
Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R. & Nielsen, R. Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2022. Accessed 07 June 2024; https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6e357e97-7b16-450a-a827-a92c93729a08
Tucker, J. A. et al. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3144139, Mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139 .
Balcells, J. & Padró-Solanet, A. Crossing lines in the twitter debate on Catalonia’s independence. Int. J. Press. 25(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219858687 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/1940161219858687
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160 (2015).
doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1160
pubmed: 25953820
Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Ideological segregation online and offline *. Q. J. Econ. 126(4), 1799–1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr044
Mekacher, A., Falkenberg, M. & Baronchelli, A. The systemic impact of deplatforming on social media. PNAS Nexus 2(11), pgad346. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad346 (2023).
doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad346
pubmed: 37954163
pmcid: 10638500
Vaccari, C. et al. Of echo chambers and contrarian clubs: Exposure to political disagreement among German and Italian users of Twitter. Soc. Media Soc. 2(3), 2056305116664221. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664221 (2016).
doi: 10.1177/2056305116664221
Atienza-Barthelemy, J., Martin-Gutierrez, S., Losada, J. C. & Benito, R. M. Relationship between ideology and language in the Catalan independence context. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53404-x (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53404-x
pubmed: 31748567
pmcid: 6868228
Yu, X., Wojcieszak, M. & Casas, A. Partisanship on social media: In-party love among American politicians, greater engagement with out-party hate among ordinary users. Polit. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09850-x (2023).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-022-09850-x
Eady, G., Nagler, J., Guess, A., Zilinsky, J. & Tucker, J. A. ‘How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and twitter data. Sage Open 9(1), 2158244019832705. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832705 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/2158244019832705
Kubin, E. & von Sikorski, C. The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 45(3), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
Waller, I. & Anderson, A. Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms. Nature 600(7888), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04167-x (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04167-x
pubmed: 34853472
Nguyen, C. T. Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme 17(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32 (2020).
doi: 10.1017/epi.2018.32
Bail, C. Breaking the Social Media Prism How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing 2021 (Princeton University Press, 2021).
doi: 10.2307/j.ctv18zhdhg
Falkenberg, M., Zollo, F., Quattrociocchi, W., Pfeffer, J. & Baronchelli, A. Affective and interactional polarization align across countries. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.18535 (2023)
Hernández, E., Anduiza, E. & Rico, G. Affective polarization and the salience of elections. Elect. Stud. 69, 102203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102203 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102203
Bimber, B. Digital media in the obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.895691 (2014).
doi: 10.1080/19331681.2014.895691
Cardenal, A. S. ‘Parties and ICTs: Analyzing party strategies to use the internet for political mobilization. In Global Strategy and Practice of E-Governance: Examples from Around the World 355–376 (IGI Global, 2011). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-489-9.ch020 .
Kruikemeier, S. How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
Lilleker, D. G., Tenscher, J. & Štětka, V. Towards hypermedia campaigning? Perceptions of new media’s importance for campaigning by party strategists in comparative perspective. Inf. Commun. Soc. 18(7), 747–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.993679 (2015).
doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.993679
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R. & McPhee, W. N. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (University of Chicago Press, 1954).
Key, V. O. Jr. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–1960 (Harvard University Press, 1966). https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674497764 .
doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674497764
Haselmayer, M., Meyer, T. M. & Wagner, M. Fighting for attention: Media coverage of negative campaign messages. Party Polit. 25(3), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817724174 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/1354068817724174
Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J. & Hmielowski, J. D. Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Inf. Commun. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783
De Marzo, G., Zaccaria, A. & Castellano, C. Emergence of polarization in a voter model with personalized information. Phys. Rev. Res. 2(4), 043117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043117 (2020).
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043117
Johnson, B. K., Neo, R. L., Heijnen, M. E. M., Smits, L. & van Veen, C. Issues, involvement, and influence: Effects of selective exposure and sharing on polarization and participation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 104, 106155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.031 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.031
Acampa, S. & Nunziata, F. The Discursive dimensions of pernicious polarization. Analysis of right-wing populists in Western Europe on Twitter. Soc. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13060292 (2024).
doi: 10.3390/socsci13060292
Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A. & Walker, J. Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. J. Polit. 70(1), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381607080139 (2008).
doi: 10.1017/S0022381607080139
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol. Bull. 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 (2003).
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
pubmed: 12784934
Jost, J. T. & Krochik, M. Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. In Advances in Motivation Science Vol. 1 (ed. Elliot, A. J.) 181–231 (Elsevier, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2014.08.005 .
doi: 10.1016/bs.adms.2014.08.005
Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T. & Bavel, J. J. V. Not for all the tea in China! Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PLOS ONE 8(4), e59837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059837 (2013).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059837
pubmed: 23620724
pmcid: 3631191
Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Polit. Behav. 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
Stern, C., West, T. V., Jost, J. T. & Rule, N. O. “Ditto heads”: Do conservatives perceive greater consensus within their ranks than liberals?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40(9), 1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214537834 (2014).
doi: 10.1177/0146167214537834
pubmed: 24972941
Hogg, M. A., Sherman, D. K., Dierselhuis, J., Maitner, A. T. & Moffitt, G. Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43(1), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.008
Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K. S. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J. Commun. 59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
Kahan, D. M. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271 (2013).
doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005271
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. & Meng, J. Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Commun. Res. 36(3), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030 (2009).
doi: 10.1177/0093650209333030
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E. & Garrett, R. K. The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (Dis)trust science. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/0002716214555474
Yang, J. et al. Why are “others” so polarized? perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 21(5), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12166 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12166
Tajfel, H. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 474 (Academic Press, 1978).
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political Psychology Key readings in Social Psychology (eds Jost, J. T. & Sidanius, J.) 276–293 (Psychology Press, 1979).
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. In Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory (ed. Maines, David R.) 239 (Basil Blackwell, 1987).
Brewer, M. B. ‘Intergroup discrimination: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? In The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice (eds Sibley, C. G. & Barlow, F. K.) 90–110 (Cambridge University Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.005 .
doi: 10.1017/9781316161579.005
Bankert, A. Negative and positive partisanship in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Polit. Behav. 43(4), 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09599-1 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-020-09599-1
Dias, N. & Lelkes, Y. The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 66(3), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/ajps.12628
Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin. Q. 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038 (2012).
doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs038
Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. J. Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/ajps.12152
Mason, L. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (University of Chicago Press, 2018).
doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001
Reiljan, A., Garzia, D., Silva, F. F. D. & Trechsel, A. H. Patterns of affective polarization toward parties and leaders across the democratic world. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 118(2), 654–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000485 (2024).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055423000485
Wagner, M. Affective polarization in multiparty systems. Elect. Stud. 69, 102199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199
Amira, K., Wright, J. C. & Goya-Tocchetto, D. In-group love versus out-group hate: Which is more important to partisans and when?. Polit. Behav. 43(2), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09557-6 (2021).
doi: 10.1007/s11109-019-09557-6
Lelkes, Y. & Westwood, S. J. The limits of partisan prejudice. J. Polit. 79(2), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1086/688223 (2017).
doi: 10.1086/688223
Brewer, M. B. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?. J. Soc. Issues 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126 (1999).
doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00126
Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Elect. Stud. 41, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001
Iyengar, S. & Krupenkin, M. The strengthening of partisan affect. Polit. Psychol. 39(S1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/pops.12487
Medeiros, M. & Noël, A. The forgotten side of partisanship: negative party identification in four Anglo-American democracies. Comp. Polit. Stud. 47(7), 1022–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488560 (2014).
doi: 10.1177/0010414013488560
McGregor, R. M., Caruana, N. J. & Stephenson, L. B. Negative partisanship in a multi-party system: The case of canada. J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 25(3), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.997239 (2015).
doi: 10.1080/17457289.2014.997239
Caruana, N. J., McGregor, R. M. & Stephenson, L. B. The power of the dark side: negative partisanship and political behaviour in Canada. Can. J. Polit. Sci. Can. Sci. Polit. 48(4), 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914000882 (2015).
doi: 10.1017/S0008423914000882
Hughes, A. & Asheer, N. National Politics on Twitter: Small Share of U.S. Adults Produce Majority of Tweets (Pew Research Center, 2019).
Soroka, S., Fournier, P. & Nir, L. Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(38), 18888–18892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908369116 (2019).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908369116
pubmed: 31481621
pmcid: 6754543
Trussler, M. & Soroka, S. Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. Int. J. Press. 19(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214524832 (2014).
doi: 10.1177/1940161214524832
Nai, A. Fear and loathing in populist campaigns? Comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists in elections worldwide. J. Polit. Mark. 20(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2018.1491439 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/15377857.2018.1491439
De Vries, C. E. & Hobolt, S. B. Political Entrepreneurs: The Rise of Challenger Parties in Europe (Princeton University Press, 2020).
doi: 10.2307/j.ctvt9k3d3
Gelman, J., Wilson, S. L. & Sanhueza Petrarca, C. Mixing messages: How candidates vary in their use of Twitter. J. Inf. Technol. Polit. 18(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1814929 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/19331681.2020.1814929
Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K. & Bimber, B. Right-wing populism, social media and echo chambers in Western democracies. New Media Soc. 22(4), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893983 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/1461444819893983
Kahne, J. & Bowyer, B. The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Polit. Commun. 35(3), 470–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662
Stier, S., Strohmaier, M., Lietz, H. & Bleier, A. Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on facebook and twitter. Polit. Commun. 35(1), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
Torcal, M. De votantes a Hooligans: La Polarización Política en España (Catarata, 2023).
Orriols, L. & Cordero, G. The breakdown of the spanish two-party system: The upsurge of podemos and ciudadanos in the 2015 general election. South Eur. Soc. Polit. 21(4), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2016.1198454 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/13608746.2016.1198454
Rama, J., Cordero, G. & Zagórski, P. Three is a crowd? Podemos, ciudadanos, and Vox: The end of bipartisanship in Spain. Front. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.688130 (2021).
doi: 10.3389/fpos.2021.688130
Rama, J., Zanotti, L., Turnbull-Dugarte, S. J. & Santana, A. VOX: The Rise of the Spanish Populist Radical Right (Routledge, 2021).
doi: 10.4324/9781003049227
Turnbull-Dugarte, S. J., Rama, J. & Santana, A. The Baskerville’s dog suddenly started barking: Voting for VOX in the 2019 Spanish general elections. J. Polit. Res. Exch. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1781543 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/2474736X.2020.1781543
Orriols, L. & León, S. Looking for affective polarisation in spain: PSOE and podemos from conflict to coalition. South Eur. Soc. Polit. 25(3–4), 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2021.1911440 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/13608746.2021.1911440
Simon, P. The multiple spanish elections of april and May 2019: The impact of territorial and left-right polarisation. South Eur. Soc. Polit. 25(3–4), 441–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2020.1756612 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/13608746.2020.1756612
Rodon, T. The Spanish electoral cycle of 2019: A tale of two countries. West Eur. Polit. 43(7), 1490–1512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1761689 (2020).
doi: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1761689
Mendes, M. S. & Dennison, J. Explaining the emergence of the radical right in Spain and Portugal: Salience, stigma and supply. West Eur. Polit. 44(4), 752–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1777504 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1777504
Parmelee, J. H. Political journalists and Twitter: Influences on norms and practices. J. Media Pract. 14(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.14.4.291_1 (2013).
doi: 10.1386/jmpr.14.4.291_1
Statista Research Department, ‘Number of monthly active X (formerly Twitter) users worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 1st quarter 2019’, Statista. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/
Metaxas, P. et al. What do retweets indicate? Results from User survey and meta-review of research. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 9(1), 658–661 (2015).
doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v9i1.14661
Martin-Gutierrez, S., Losada, J. C. & Benito, R. M. Impact of individual actions on the collective response of social systems. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69005-y (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69005-y
pubmed: 32699262
pmcid: 7376036
Morales, A. J., Borondo, J., Losada, J. C. & Benito, R. M. Efficiency of human activity on information spreading on Twitter. Soc. Netw. 39, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.03.007 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2014.03.007
Orriols, L. Democracia de trincheras: Por qué votamos a quienes votamos 1st edn. (Ediciones Península, 2023).
Garmendia Madariaga, A., Lorenzo-Rodríguez, J. & Riera, P. Building blocks: Online political promiscuity in times of polarization in Spain. Rev. Esp. Investig. Sociológicas REIS 178(178), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.178.61 (2022).
doi: 10.5477/cis/reis.178.61
Borondo, J., Morales, A. J., Losada, J. C. & Benito, R. M. Characterizing and modeling an electoral campaign in the context of Twitter: 2011 Spanish Presidential election as a case study. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 22(2), 023138. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4729139 (2012).
doi: 10.1063/1.4729139
Martin-Gutierrez, S., Losada, J. C. & Benito, R. M. Recurrent patterns of user behavior in different electoral campaigns: A twitter analysis of the spanish general elections of 2015 and 2016. Complexity 2018, e2413481. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2413481 (2018).
doi: 10.1155/2018/2413481
Yaqub, U., Chun, S. A., Atluri, V. & Vaidya, J. Analysis of political discourse on twitter in the context of the 2016 US presidential elections. Gov. Inf. Q. 34(4), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.001 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.001
Conover, M. et al. Political polarization on twitter. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126 (2011).
doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126
Levendusky, M. S. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public. Public Opin. Q. 80(S1), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv045 (2016).
doi: 10.1093/poq/nfv045
Martin-Gutierrez, S., Losada, J. C. & Benito, R. M. Multipolar social systems: Measuring polarization beyond dichotomous contexts. Chaos Solitons Fractals 169, 113244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113244 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113244