Tweeting Apart: Applying Network Analysis to Detect Selective Exposure Clusters in Twitter

Communication Methods and Measures

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 169-197

  Himelboim, Itai ^a   Smith, Marc ^b   Shneiderman, Ben ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b Social Media Foundation   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882725377     PISSN: 19312458     EISSN: 19312466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2013.813922     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adamic, L.Glance, N.2005The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf (http://http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf)
2. Arendt, H. 1968. " Truth and politics ". In Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought, Edited by: Arendt, H. New York, NY: Viking Press.
3. Babbie, E. R. 2012. The practice of social research, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4. Calhoun, C. 1988, Fall. Populist politics, communication media and large scale societal integration. Sociological Theory, 6: 219-241. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1998.tb00474.x
5. Carrington, P. J., Scott, J. and Wasserman, S. 2005. Models and methods in social network analysis, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Chaffee, S. H., Saphir, M. S., Graf, J., Sandvig, C. and Hahn, K. S. 2001. Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication, 18 (3): 247-272. doi: 10.1080/10584600152400338
7. Choi, S., Park, J. and Park, H. 2011, February. Twitter, a medium for social mobilizing?: An exploratory study on the use of twitaddons.com in South Korea, Paper presented at the International Network for Social Network Analysis. St. Petersburg, FL.
8. Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J. and Moore, C. 2004. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70: 066111 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066111
9. Corrado, A. and Firestone, C. M., eds. 1996. Elections in cyberspace: Toward a new era in American politics, Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
10. Durrheim, K. 2007. " Research design ". In Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences, Edited by: Blanche, M. T., Durrheim, K. and Painter, D. 33-59. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.
11. Eysenbach, G. 2008. " Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth ". In Digital media, youth, and credibility, Edited by: Metzger, M. J. and Flanagin, A. J. 123-154. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Garrett, R. K. 2009. 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
13. Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D. and Lynch, E. K. 2011. A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information. Political Behavior, 35 (1): 113-134. doi: 10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6
14. Gergen, K. J. 2008. " Mobile communication and the transformation of the democratic process ". In Handbook of mobile communication studies, Edited by: Katz, J. 297-310. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Correa, T. and Valenzuela, S. 2012. Selective exposure to cable news and immigration in the U.S.: The relationship between FOX News, CNN, and attitudes toward Mexican immigrants. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56 (4): 597-615. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2012.732138
16. Gitlin, T. 1998. " Public sphere or public sphericules? ". In Media, ritual and identity, Edited by: Liebes, T. and Curran, J. 168-174. London, UK: Routledge.
17. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 81: 1287-1303. doi: 10.2307/2776392
18. Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Han, J. Y. 2008. Examining effective use of an interactive health communication system (IHCS), Madison: University of Wisconsin. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
20. Han, J. Y., Wise, M., Kim, E., Pingree, R., Hawkins, R., Pingree, S. and Gustafson, D. H. 2010. Factors associated with use of interactive cancer communication system: An application of the comprehensive model of information seeking (CMIS). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15: 367-388. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01508.x
21. Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B. and Smith, M. A. 2011. Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world, Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
22. Hargittai, E., Gallo, J. and Kane, M. 2008. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice, 134 (1-2): 67-86. doi: 10.1007/s11127-007-9201-x
23. Hauben, M. and Hauben, R. 1997. Netcitizen, London, UK: Wiley.
24. Hwang, Y. 2010. Selective exposure and selective perception of anti-tobacco campaign messages: The impacts of campaign exposure on selective perception. Health Communication, 25 (2): 182-190. doi: 10.1080/10410230903474027
25. Himelboim, I., McCreery, S. and Smith, M. 2011, May. Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter, Boston, MA.: Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference.
26. Holbert, R. L., Garrett, R. K. and Gleason, L. S. 2010. A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60 (1): 15-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x
27. Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M.Wu, F.2009Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14(1-5) [online]. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063 (http://http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063)
28. Iyenger, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A. and Walker, J. 2008. Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics, 70 (1): 186-200. doi: 10.2307/30218868
29. Kelly, J. D., Fisher, D.Smith, M.2005Debate, division, and diversity: Political discourse networks in Usenet newsgroups. http://www.coi.columbia.edu/pdf/kelly_fisher_smith_ddd.pdf (http://http://www.coi.columbia.edu/pdf/kelly_fisher_smith_ddd.pdf)
30. Kelly, W., Fisher, D. and Smith, M. 2006. Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in political discussion networks. ACM Conference Proceeding Series, 151: 412-417.
31. Krebs, V.2004The social life of books: Visualizing communities of interest via purchase patterns on the WWW. http://orgnet.com/booknet.html (http://http://orgnet.com/booknet.html)
32. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. and Meng, J. 2011. Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61 (2): 349-368. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x
33. Knobloch-Westerwick, S. 2012. Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election. Journal of Communication, 62 (4): 628-642. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01651.x
34. McGeough, R. E. 2010, November. The market AS the forum: Amazon.com discussion forums as deliberative spaces, San Francisco, CA.: Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association.
35. McKenna, K. Y. A. and Bargh, J. A. 2000. Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 57-75. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
36. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415-445. doi: 10.2307/2678628
37. Mill, J. S. 1956. On liberty, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
38. Newman, M. 2001. Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64: 025102 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.025102
39. Newman, M. 2004. Detecting community structure in networks. The European Physical Journal B, 38 (2): 321-330. doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00124-y
40. Parmelee, J. H. and Bichard, S. L. 2012. Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
41. Pariser, E. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you, London, UK: Penguin.
42. Raban, D. R. and Rabin, E. 2007. The power of assuming normality, Spain.: Paper presented at EMCIS, Valencia.
43. Rheingold, H. 1993. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
44. Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K. and Medina, R. 2009. The social life of social networks: Facebook linkage patterns in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Puebla, Mexico: Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research.
45. Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P. and Sypher, H. E. 1994. Communication research measures: A sourcebook, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46. Shapiro, A. L. 1999. The control revolution: How the Internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know, New York, NY: Public Affairs.
47. Stromer-Galley, J. 2003. Diversity of political conversation on the Internet: Users' perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (8) doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00215.x
48. Stroud, N. J. 2008. Media use and political predispositions: Revising the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 30 (3): 341-366. doi: 10.2307/40213321
49. Sunstein, C. 2006. Republic 2.0, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50. Turow, J. 1997. Breaking up America: Advertisers and the new media world, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
51. van Alstyne, M. and Brynjolfsson, E. 1996. " Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans? ". In ICIS 1996 Edited by: DeGross, J., Jarvenpaa, S. and Srinivasan, A. 80-98. doi: 10.2307/20110380
52. Wang, Y. 2012, March. Forcing a breakdown: Establishing the limits of community detection algorithms, Redondo Beach, CA: Paper presented at the International Network for Social Network Analysis Sunbelt, 32nd Annual Conference.
53. Warner, B. R. 2010. Segmenting the electorate: The effects of exposure to political extremism online. Communication Studies, 61 (4): 430-444.
54. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. 1999. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55. Watts, D. J. and Strogatz, S. H. 1998. Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. Nature, 393: 440-442. doi: 10.1038/30918
56. Wojcieszak, M. E. and Mutz, D. 2009. Online groups and political discourse. Journal of Communication, 59: 40-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x