Social media news sharing has become a central subject of scholarly research in communication studies. To test current theories, it is of an utmost importance to estimate the meaningful parameters of news sharing behavior from observational data. In this article, we retrieve measures of ideological congruence, issue salience, and media reputation to explain news sharing in social media. We describe how the proposed statistical model connects to different strands of the news sharing literature. We then exemplify the usefulness of the model with an analysis of the relationship between ideological congruence and issue salience. Results show that if ideology and salience correlate with each other, the preferences of ideologues (i.e., users who give higher weight to ideological congruence) will be overrepresented in observational data. This will result in the heightened perceptions of polarization. We test the performance of the model using data from Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.
ArugueteN.CalvoE.. 2018. “Time to# Protest: Selective Exposure, Cascading Activation, and Framing in Social Media.” Journal of Communication68 (3): 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy007.
2.
ArugueteN.CalvoE.VenturaT.. 2021. “News Sharing, Gatekeeping, and Polarization: A Study of the# Bolsonaro Election.” Digital Journalism9 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1852094.
3.
BailC.2021. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
4.
BarberáP.2015. “Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data.” Political Analysis23 (1): 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu011.
5.
BarberáPablo. 2020. “Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization.” Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform34.
BoehmerJanTandocEdson C. 2015. “Why we retweet: Factors influencing intentions to share sport news on Twitter.” International Journal of Sport Communication8 (2): 212–232.
8.
BondR.MessingS.. 2015. “Quantifying Social Media’s Political Space: Estimating Ideology from Publicly Revealed Preferences on Facebook.” American Political Science Review109 (1): 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000525.
9.
BoydD. M.GolderS.LotanG.. 2010. “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter.” In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. Honolulu, HI: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412.
10.
CalvoE.HellwigT.. 2011. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives Under Different Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00482.x.
11.
ChoiJ.LeeJ. K.. 2015. “Investigating the Effects of News Sharing and Political Interest on Social Media Network Heterogeneity.” Computers in Human Behavior44:258–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.029.
12.
ConoverM. D.RatkiewiczJ.FranciscoM.GonçalvesB.MenczerF.FlamminiA.. 2011. “Political polarization on twitter.” In Fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.
13.
Delli CarpiniM. X.2004. “Mediating Democratic Engagement: The Impact of Communications on Citizens’ Involvement in Political and Civic Life.” In Handbook of Political Communication Research, ed. L. L. Kaid, 395–434. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FeldS. L.1991. “Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than you do.” American Journal of Sociology96 (6): 1464–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/229693.
15.
FlaxmanS.GoelS.RaoJ. M.. 2016. “Filter Bubbles, echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006.
16.
García-PerdomoV.SalaverríaR.KilgoD. K.HarlowS.. 2018. “To Share or not to Share: The Influence of News Values and Topics on Popular Social Media Content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.” Journalism Studies19 (8): 1180–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896.
17.
GuessA. M.2021. “(Almost) Everything in Moderation: New Evidence on Americans’ Online Media Diets.” American Journal of Political Science65: 1007–1022.
18.
HanuschF.NöllekeD.. 2019. “Journalistic Homophily on Social Media: Exploring Journalists’ Interactions with Each Other on Twitter.” Digital Journalism7 (1): 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1436977.
19.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL.. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review109 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604.
20.
KahnemanD.2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan.
21.
KarnowskiV.LeinerD. J.Sophie KümpelA.LeonhardL.. 2020. “Worth to Share? How Content Characteristics and Article Competitiveness Influence News Sharing on Social Network Sites.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly98(1): 59–82. https://doi.org/1077699020940340.
22.
KarnowskiV.LeonhardL.KümpelA. S.. 2018. “Why Users Share the News: A Theory of Reasoned Action-Based Study on the Antecedents of News-Sharing Behavior.” Communication Research Reports35 (2): 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1379984.
23.
KümpelA. S.KarnowskiV.KeylingT.. 2015. “News Sharing in Social Media: A Review of Current Research on News Sharing Users, Content, and Networks.” Social Media+ Society1 (2): .1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610141.
24.
LeeE.-J.TandocE. C.Jr.2017. “When News Meets the Audience: How Audience Feedback Online Affects News Production and Consumption.” Human Communication Research43 (4): 436–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12123.
25.
MacskassyS. A.MichelsonM.2011, July. “Why do people retweet? Anti-Homophily Wins the Day!” In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
26.
MasonL.2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
OosterhoffB.ShookN. J.FordC.. 2018. “Is That Disgust I see? Political Ideology and Biased Visual Attention.” Behavioral Brain Research336:227–35. Is That Disgust I see? Political Ideology and Biased Visual Attention.
28.
OsmundsenM.BorA.VahlstrupP. B.BechmannA.PetersenM. B.. 2020. “Partisan Polarization is the Primary Psychological Motivation Behind “Fake News” Sharing on Twitter.” American Political Science Review115 (3): 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AH6AZK.
29.
RudatAnjaBuderJürgen. 2015. “Making retweeting social: The influence of content and context information on sharing news in Twitter.” Computers in Human Behavior46: 75–84.
30.
RussellF. M.2019. “Twitter and News Gatekeeping: Interactivity, Reciprocity, and Promotion in News Organizations’ Tweets.” Digital Journalism7 (1): 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1399805.
31.
ScheufeleD. A.NisbetM. C.. 2013. “Commentary: Online News and the Demise of Political Disagreement.” Annals of the International Communication Association36 (1): 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679125.
32.
SikderO.SmithR. E.VivoP.LivanG.. 2020. “A Minimalistic Model of Bias, Polarization and Misinformation in Social Networks.” Scientific Reports10 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62085-w.
33.
StrömbäckJ.Djerf-PierreM.ShehataA.. 2013. “The Dynamics of Political Interest and News Media Consumption: A Longitudinal Perspective.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research25 (4): 414–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds018.
34.
SuhB.HongL.PirolliP.ChiE. H.. 2010, August. “Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network.” In 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing, 177–84. IEEE.
TrillingD.TolochkoP.BurscherB.. 2017. “From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly94 (1): 38–60.
37.
Von NordheimG.BoczekK.KoppersL.. 2018. “Sourcing the Sources: An Analysis of the use of Twitter and Facebook as A Journalistic Source Over 10 Years in The New York Times, The Guardian, and Süddeutsche Zeitung.” Digital Journalism6 (7): 807–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1490658.
38.
WangH.CanD.KazemzadehA.BarF.NarayananS.. 2012, July. “A System for Real-Time Twitter Sentiment Analysis of 2012 us Presidential Election Cycle.” In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations, 115–20.
39.
WaruwuB. K.TandocE. C.Jr.DuffyA.KimN.LingR.. 2020. “Telling Lies Together? Sharing News as A Form of Social Authentication.” New Media & Society23(9): 2516–2533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820931017.
40.
WeaverD.1991. “Issue Salience and Public Opinion: Are There Consequences of Agenda-Setting?” International Journal of Public Opinion Research3 (1): 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/3.1.53.
41.
WeeksB. E.HolbertR. L.. 2013. “Predicting Dissemination of News Content in Social Media: A Focus on Reception, Friending, and Partisanship.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly90 (2): 212–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699013482906.
42.
ZhengT.SalganikM. J.GelmanA.. 2006. “How Many People do you Know in Prison? Using Overdispersion in Count Data to Estimate Social Structure in Networks.” Journal of the American Statistical Association101 (474): 409–23.
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.
