This study utilizes social media data and deep-learning-based text classification methods to investigate cross-cutting interactions on social media. Our findings reveal that people are more likely to use offensive speech in response to content published by opposing partisans. Furthermore, we demonstrate how inter-party hostility is associated with the partisan identity of both the message sender and the target in the interaction. On one hand, the findings indicate that strong partisans and people who publicly assert their partisan identities tend to attack opposing partisans, suggesting a relationship between the salience of partisan identity and value defense mechanisms. On the other hand, strong partisans, especially politicians, are more likely to be the target of offensive speech from opposing partisans. The disparity in the extent of received offensive speech is argued to result from individuals’ tendency to maintain their partisan identification by expressing hostility toward representative individuals of opposing partisans.
AbramowitzAIWebsterS (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
2.
AndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA, et al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 373–387.
3.
BarberáP (2015) Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Political Analysis23(1): 76–91.
4.
BarberáPJostJTNaglerJ, et al. (2015) Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science26(10): 1531–1542.
5.
BarbieriFCamacho-ColladosJAnkeLE, et al. (2020) TweetEval: unified benchmark and comparative evaluation for tweet classification. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pp. 1644–1650. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.148.
6.
BemDJ (1967) Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review74(3): 183–200.
7.
BentivegnaSRegaR (2022) Searching for the dimensions of today’s political incivility. Social Media + Society8(3): 20563051221114430.
8.
BrewerMBManziJMShawJS (1993) In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science4(2): 88–92.
9.
CarpiniMXDCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science7(1): 315–344.
10.
ChoJAhmedSKeumH, et al. (2018) Influencing myself: self-reinforcement through online political expression. Communication Research45(1): 83–111.
11.
CinelliMMoralesGDFGaleazziA, et al. (2021) The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(9): e2023301118.
12.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
13.
ConoverMRatkiewiczJFranciscoM, et al. (2011) Political polarization on twitter. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on web and social media, pp. 89–96. Available at: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14126
14.
ConoverMDGonçalvesBFlamminiA, et al. (2012) Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science1(1): 6.
15.
DavidsonTWarmsleyDMacyM, et al. (2017) Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, pp. 512–515. Available at: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14955
16.
DruckmanJNLevenduskyMS (2019) What do we measure when we measure affective polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly83(1): 114–122.
17.
DruckmanJNKlarSKrupnikovY, et al. (2022) (Mis-)estimating affective polarization. The Journal of Politics2(84): 1106–1117.
18.
DruckmanJNPetersonESlothuusR (2013) How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review107(1): 57–79.
19.
EndersAMLuptonRN (2021) Value extremity contributes to affective polarization in the US. Political Science Research and Methods9(4): 857–866.
20.
EngesserSErnstNEsserF, et al. (2017) Populism and social media: how politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society20(8): 1109–1126.
21.
FletcherRNielsenRK (2017) Are news audiences increasingly fragmented? A cross-national comparative analysis of cross-platform news audience fragmentation and duplication. Journal of Communication67(4): 476–498.
22.
GervaisBT (2015) Incivility online: affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12(2): 167–185.
23.
GroshekJKoc-MichalskaK (2017) Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society20(9): 1389–1407.
24.
HuckfeldtRMendezJMOsbornT (2004) Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: the political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology25(1): 65–95.
25.
HuddyL (2001) From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology22(1): 127–156.
26.
HuddyL (2015) Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review109(01): 1–17.
27.
IyengarSKrupenkinM (2018) The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology39: 201–218.
28.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
29.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22(1): 129–146.
30.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
31.
JungherrA (2016) Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(1): 72–91.
32.
KimYKimY (2019) Incivility on Facebook and political polarization: the mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior99: 219–227.
33.
KingzetteJ (2021) Who do you loathe? Feelings toward politicians vs. ordinary people in the opposing party. Journal of Experimental Political Science8(1): 75–84.
34.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin3(108): 480–498.
35.
LaneDSLeeSSLiangF, et al. (2019) Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication69(1): 49–72.
36.
LearyMRKowalskiRM (1990) Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin1(107): 34–47.
37.
LevenduskyM (2013) Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political Communication30(4): 565–581.
38.
MarquartFOhmeJMöllerJ (2020) Following politicians on social media: effects for political information, peer communication, and youth engagement. Media and Communication8(2): 197–207.
39.
Matamoros-FernándezAFarkasJ (2021) Racism, hate speech, and social media: a systematic review and critique. Television & New Media22(2): 205–224.
MoslehMMartelCEcklesD, et al. (2021) Shared partisanship dramatically increases social tie formation in a Twitter field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(7): 9–11.
MullinixKJ (2016) Partisanship and preference formation: competing motivations, elite polarization, and issue importance. Political Behavior38(2): 383–411.
44.
MutzDCMondakJJ (2006) The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics68(1): 140–155.
45.
PetersonEGoelSIyengarS (2021) Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Political Science Research and Methods9(2): 242–258.
46.
PettigrewTFTroppLR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90: 751–783.
47.
PriceVCappellaJNNirL (2002) Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication19(1): 95–112.
48.
RainsSAKenskiKCoeK, et al. (2017) Incivility and political identity on the internet: intergroup factors as predictors of incivility in discussions of news online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(4): 163–178.
49.
RathjeSBavelJJVLindenS, et al. (2021) Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(26): e2024292118.
50.
RheaultLRaymentEMusulanA (2019) Politicians in the line of fire: incivility and the treatment of women on social media. Research & Politics6(1): 2053168018816228.
51.
RogowskiJCSutherlandJL (2016) How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior38(2): 485–508.
52.
SantoroEBroockmanDE (2022) The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: evidence from randomized experiments. Science Advances8(25): eabn5515.
53.
StahelLSchoenC (2020) Female journalists under attack? Explaining gender differences in reactions to audiences’ attacks. New Media & Society22(10): 1849–1867.
54.
StroudNJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication60(3): 556–576.
55.
SunsteinCR (2018) Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (NED-New edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56.
TaberCSCannDKucsovaS (2009) The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior31(2): 137–155.
57.
TajfelH (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33(1): 1–39.
58.
ThomsenJPFThomsenAH (2022) Intergroup contact reduces affective polarization but not among strong party identifiers. Scandinavian Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 9 November. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9477.12242.
59.
WaseemZHovyD (2016) Hateful symbols or hateful people? Predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. In: Proceedings of the NAACL student research workshop, San Diego, CA, pp. 88–93. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.18653/v1/n16-2013.
60.
WebsterSWAbramowitzAI (2017) The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research45(4): 621–647.
61.
WestEAIyengarS (2022) Partisanship as a social identity: implications for polarization. Political Behavior44(2): 807–838.
62.
WidmannTWichM (2022) Creating and comparing dictionary, word embedding, and transformer-based models to measure discrete emotions in German political text. Political Analysis. Epub ahead of print 29 June. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2022.15.
63.
WojcieszakMWarnerBR (2020) Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication37(6): 789–811.
64.
WojcieszakMCasasAYuX, et al. (2022) Most users do not follow political elites on Twitter; those who do show overwhelming preferences for ideological congruity. Science Advances8(39): eabn9418.
65.
WolfTDebutLSanhV, et al. (2020) Transformers: state-of-the-art natural language processing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, Online, pp. 38–45. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.emnlp-demos.6
66.
YuXWojcieszakMCasasA (2023) Partisnship on social media: in-party love among American politicians, greater engagement with out-party hate among ordinary users. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print 8 January. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-022-09850-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.
