Abstract
There has been growing concern about the role social media plays in political polarization. We investigated whether out-group animosity was particularly successful at generating engagement on two of the largest social media platforms: Facebook and Twitter. Analyzing posts from news media accounts and US congressional members (n = 2,730,215), we found that posts about the political out-group were shared or retweeted about twice as often as posts about the in-group. Each individual term referring to the political out-group increased the odds of a social media post being shared by 67%. Out-group language consistently emerged as the strongest predictor of shares and retweets: the average effect size of out-group language was about 4.8 times as strong as that of negative affect language and about 6.7 times as strong as that of moral-emotional language—both established predictors of social media engagement. Language about the out-group was a very strong predictor of “angry” reactions (the most popular reactions across all datasets), and language about the in-group was a strong predictor of “love” reactions, reflecting in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. This out-group effect was not moderated by political orientation or social media platform, but stronger effects were found among political leaders than among news media accounts. In sum, out-group language is the strongest predictor of social media engagement across all relevant predictors measured, suggesting that social media may be creating perverse incentives for content expressing out-group animosity.
Funder
Gates Cambridge Trust
John Templeton Foundation
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reference70 articles.
1. J. Horwitz , D. Seetharaman , Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive. Wall Street Journal (2020). https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499. Accessed 3 June 2020.
2. K. Wagner , Inside Twitter’s ambitious plan to clean up its platform. Vox (2019). https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18245536/exclusive-twitter-healthy-conversations-dunking-research-product-incentives. Accessed 3 June 2020.
3. D. Van Dijcke , A. L. Wright , Profiling insurrection: Characterizing collective action using mobile device data. SSRN [Preprint] (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3776854 (Accessed 9 February 2021).
4. N. Persily , J. A. Tucker , Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
5. C. R. Sunstein , Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (Princeton University Press, 2018).
Cited by
226 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献