Most users do not follow political elites on Twitter; those who do show overwhelming preferences for ideological congruity

Author:

Wojcieszak Magdalena12ORCID,Casas Andreu3ORCID,Yu Xudong2ORCID,Nagler Jonathan4ORCID,Tucker Joshua A.4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.

2. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

3. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

4. Center for Social Media and Politics, New York University, New York, NY, USA.

Abstract

We offer comprehensive evidence of preferences for ideological congruity when people engage with politicians, pundits, and news organizations on social media. Using 4 years of data (2016–2019) from a random sample of 1.5 million Twitter users, we examine three behaviors studied separately to date: (i) following of in-group versus out-group elites, (ii) sharing in-group versus out-group information (retweeting), and (iii) commenting on the shared information (quote tweeting). We find that the majority of users (60%) do not follow any political elites. Those who do follow in-group elite accounts at much higher rates than out-group accounts (90 versus 10%), share information from in-group elites 13 times more frequently than from out-group elites, and often add negative comments to the shared out-group information. Conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to share in-group versus out-group content. These patterns are robust, emerge across issues and political elites, and exist regardless of users’ ideological extremity.

Publisher

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference71 articles.

1. Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis

2. A. W. Geiger Key Findings About the Online News Landscape in America (Pew Research Center 2019).

3. E. Pariser The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think (Penguin Books reprint edition 2012).

4. C. R. Sunstein Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (Princeton Univ. Press 2018).

5. Political sectarianism in America

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3