As communication increasingly occurs in online environments, it is important to know the structure of such conversations in social networks. Here, we investigate patterns of conversation in online forums concerning politics, as well as patterns of cross-ideological interactions in forums that are not expressly political. First, we demonstrate a method for measuring the latent ideological preferences of more than 690,000 individuals using patterns of political commenting. Using this measure, we find that communication between ideologically dissimilar individuals becomes more common in periods of increased engagement with politics, that political homophily decreases as more individuals contribute to a conversation, and that forums dedicated to nonpolitical topics exhibit substantially less homophily than political forums. Theoretical implications for political communication on online platforms are discussed.
Amichai-HamburgerY.McKennaK. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 825-843. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x
3.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130-1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
4.
BallietD. (2009). Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54, 39-57. doi:10.1177/0022002709352443
5.
BaltesB. B.DicksonM. W.ShermanM. P.BauerC. C.LaGankeJ. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2961
6.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber. Psychological Science, 26, 1531-1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620
7.
BarnidgeM. (2015). The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 211-218. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.011
8.
BarnidgeM. (2017). Exposure to political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face and anonymous online settings. Political Communication, 34, 302-321. doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639
BondR.MessingS. (2015). Quantifying social media’s political space: Estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. American Political Science Review, 109, 62-78. doi:10.1017/S0003055414000525
11.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680-700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
12.
CentolaD.van de RijtA. (2015). Choosing your network: Social preferences in an online health community. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 19-31. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.019
13.
ColleoniE.RozzaA.ArvidssonA. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317-332. doi:10.1111/jcom.12084
14.
DiedenhofenB.MuschJ. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121945. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121945
EvelandW. P.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 204-224. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
17.
FischerC. S.MattsonG. (2009). Is America fragmenting?Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 435-455. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115909
18.
FisherR. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver and Boyd.
19.
FlaxmanS.GoelS.RaoJ. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006
20.
GarrettR. K. (2009a). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265-285. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x
21.
GarrettR. K. (2009b). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676-699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
22.
GarrettR. K.CarnahanD.LynchE. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004–2008. Political Behavior, 35, 113-134. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6
23.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1799-1839. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr044
24.
HardyB. W.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). Presidential campaign dynamics and the ebb and flow of talk as a moderator: Media exposure, knowledge, and political discussion. Communication Theory, 19, 89-101. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01334.x
25.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 40-60. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12001
26.
HuckfeldtR. (2007). Unanimity, discord, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 978-955. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00292.x
27.
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP.SpragueJ. (2004). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
ImaiK.LoJ.OlmstedJ. (2016). Fast estimation of ideal points with massive data. American Political Science Review, 110, 631-656. doi:10.1017/S000305541600037X
29.
KimB.KimY. (2017). College students’ social media use and communication network heterogeneity: Implications for social capital and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 620-628. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.033
30.
KimM. (2018). How does Facebook news use lead to actions in South Korea? The role of Facebook discussion network heterogeneity, political interest, and conflict avoidance in predicting political participation. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 1373-1381. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.007
31.
KimY. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 971-977. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001
32.
KimY.HsuS. H.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63, 498-516. doi:10.1111/jcom.12034
33.
KossinetsG.WattsD. J. (2009). Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 405-450. doi:10.1086/599247
34.
LazarsfeldP. F.MertonR. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In BergerM.AbelT.PageC. H. (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18-66). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
35.
LeeJ. K.ChoiJ.KimC.KimY. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64, 702-722. doi:10.1111/jcom.12077
36.
LewisK.GonzalezM.KaufmanJ. (2012). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 68-72. doi:10.1073/pnas.1109739109
37.
LinY.-R.KeeganB.MargolinD.LazerD. (2014). Rising tides or rising stars? Dynamics of shared attention on Twitter during media events. PLoS ONE, 9, e94093. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094093
38.
LuY.HeatherlyK. A.LeeJ. K. (2016). Cross-cutting exposure on social networking sites: The effects of SNS discussion disagreement on political participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 74-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.030
39.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
40.
MinS. J.WohnD. Y. (2018). All the news that you don’t like: Cross-cutting exposure and political participation in the age of social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 24-31. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.015
41.
MunsonS. A.ResnickP. (2010). Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1457-1466). doi:10.1145/1753326.1753543
42.
MutzD. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855. doi:10.2307/3088437
43.
MutzD. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
MutzD. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, E4330-E4339. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718155115
45.
MutzD.MartinP. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97-114.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2002). New voices in the public sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 9(2), 23-41. doi:10.1080/13183222.2002.11008798
49.
Stromer-GalleyJ. (2014). Diversity of political conversation on the internet: Users’ perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3), JCMC836. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00215.x
50.
ThorsonK.WellsC. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26, 309-328. doi:10.1111/comt.12087
51.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication, 59, 40-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
