Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data

Journal of Communication

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 317-332

  Colleoni, Elanor ^a   Rozza, Alessandro ^b   Arvidsson, Adam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES PARTHENOPE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CULTURE; INTERNET; POLITICS; SOCIAL NETWORK; WORLD WIDE WEB;

EID: 84898903739     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12084     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery. New York, NY: ACM.
2. Baldassari, D., & Bearman, P. (2006). Dynamics of political participation. ISERP Working Paper 06-07. New York, NY: Columbia University.
3. Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
5. Boutet, A., Kim, H., & Yoneki, E. (2012). What's in Twitter: I know what parties are popular and who you are supporting now! Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, pp.132-129. New York, NY: ACM.
6. Boutyline A., & Willer, R. (2013). The social structure of political echo chambers: Ideology and political homophily in online communication networks. Working paper, University of Berkeley.
7. Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
8. Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering "Difference" in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680-700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x.
9. Chittal, N. (2010). Twitter reality: The Republicans are crushing the Democrats when it comes to tweeting. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/story/147822/twitter_reality%3A_the_republicans_are_crushing_the_democrats_when_it_comes_to_tweeting
10. Conover, M.D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
11. Crammer, K., Dekel, O., Keshet, J., Shalev-Shwartz, S., & Singer, S. (2006). Online passive-aggressive algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 551-585.
12. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162. doi:10.1080/10584600590933160.
13. Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14. Feller, A., Kuhnert, M., Sprenger T.O., & Welpe, I. (2011). Divided they tweet: The network structure of political microbloggers and discussion topics. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 11).
15. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
16. Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2005). Culture war? New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
17. Fischer, C., & Mattson, G. (2009). Is America fragmenting? Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 435-455. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115909.
18. Galston, W. A. (2003). If political fragmentation is the problem, is the Internet the solution? In D. M. Anderson & M. Cornfield (Eds.), The civic web: Online politics and Democratic values (pp. 35-44). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
19. Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 611-621. doi:10.1037/a0020697.
20. Habermas, J. (1962/1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Heaney, M., Masket, S., Miller, J., & Strolovitch, D. (2012). Polarized networks: The organizational affiliations of national party convention delegates. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1654-1676. doi:10.1177/0002764212463354.
22. Holt, R. (2004). Dialogue on the Internet: Language, civic identity, and computer-mediated communication. Westport, CT: Praeger.
23. Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS '09. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
24. Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Dimensions of political homophily: Isolating choice homophily along political characteristics. American Political Science Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.
25. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038.
26. Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. (2009). Origins of homophily in evolving networks. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405-450.
27. Kushin, M., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11), 1-16.
28. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S., (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World wide web, April 26-30, 2010, Raleigh, NC. 10.1145/1772690.1772751.
29. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In B. Morroe, T. Abel, & C. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18-66). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
30. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. London: Cambridge University Press.
31. Marres, N., & Lezaun, J. (2011). Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society, 40(4), 489-509. doi:10.1080/03085147.2011.602293.
32. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
33. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. (2012). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 1-22. doi:10.1177/0093650212466406(pre-printed online).
34. Monti, C., Rozza, A., Zappella, G., Zignani, M., Arvidsson, A. & Colleoni, E., (2013). Modelling political disaffection in Twitter. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Issues of Sentiment Discovery and Opinion Mining (WISDOM 2013), August 8-11, 2013, Chicago, IL.
35. Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97-114.
36. Noveck, B. S. (2000). Paradoxical partners: Electronic communication and electronic democracy. Democratization, 7(1), 18-35. doi:10.1080/13510340008403643.
37. Pennacchiotti, M., & Popescu, A. (2011a). A machine learning approach to Twitter user classification. Proceedings of AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2011).
38. Pennacchiotti, M., & Popescu, A. (2011b). Democrats, Republicans and Starbucks afficionados: User classification in Twitter. Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-WISDOM), August 21-24, 2011, San Diego, CA.
39. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x.
40. Ravikant, N., & Rifkin, A. (2010). Why Twitter is massively undervalued compared to Facebook. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/16/why-twitter-ismassively-undervalued-compared-to-facebook/
41. Ray, P., & Anderson, R. (2000). The cultural creatives. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
42. Rogers, R. (2012). Digital methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy based on difference: Examining the links between structural heterogeneity, heterogeneity of discussion networks, and democratic citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56, 728-753. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00317.x.
44. Sprinthall, R. C. (2003). Basic statistical analysis (Seventh edition ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
45. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.
46. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
48. Weng, J., Lim, E., Jiang, J., & He, Q. (2010). TwitterRank: Finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining WSDM '10.
49. Wilhelm, A. (1998). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion. Information, Communication and Society, 1(3), 313-338. doi:10.1080/13691189809358972.
50. Williams, C.B., & Gulati, G. J. (2009). Explaining Facebook support in 2008 Congressional Election Cycle. Working Papers 26, Political Networks Paper Archive, Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pn_wp/26.
51. Wojcieszak, M., & Mutz, D. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59, 40-56. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x.
52. Yang, J., & Leskovec, J. (2011). Patterns of temporal variation in online media. Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, February 9-12, 2011, Hong Kong, China. 10.1145/1935826.1935863.