Heating up the debate? Measuring fragmentation and polarisation in a German climate change hyperlink network

Häußler, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2017.10.002

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We are only aware of few studies which examined polarization on the basis of topic-oriented approaches (e.g. Chan & Fu, 2017;Häussler, 2018). However, as public opinion forms based on issue-related discussions, it is key to focus on the analysis on specific topics.…”

Section: The Present Approach: a Combination Of Sentiment And Social mentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion-based Homogeneity on YouTube: Combining Sentiment and Social Network Analysis

Röchert¹,

Neubaum²,

Roß³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When addressing public concerns such as the existence of politically like-minded communication spaces in social media, analyses of complex political discourses are met with increasing methodological challenges to process communication data properly. To address the extent of political like-mindedness in online communication, we argue that it is necessary to focus not only on ideological homogeneity in online environments, but also on the extent to which specific political questions are discussed in a uniform manner. This study proposes an innovative combination of computational methods, including natural language processing and social network analysis, that serves as a model for future research examining the evolution of opinion climates in online networks. Data were gathered on YouTube, enabling the assessment of users’ expressed opinions on three political issues (i.e., adoption rights for same-sex couples, headscarf rights, and climate change). Challenging widely held assumptions on discursive homogeneity online, the results provide evidence for a moderate level of connections between dissimilar YouTube comments but few connections between agreeing comments. The findings are discussed in light of current computational communication research and the vigorous debate on the prevalence of like-mindedness in online networks.

show abstract

Section: The Present Approach: a Combination Of Sentiment And Social mentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion-based Homogeneity on YouTube: Combining Sentiment and Social Network Analysis

Röchert¹,

Neubaum²,

Roß³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in the recent COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, healthcare and economics experts' opinions on lock-downs were consistently contested and undermined by conflicting information on social media and in the news media (Ali & Kurasawa, 2020;Tasnim, Hossain, & Mazumder, 2020). Studies have shown that online polarisation can persist even across conceptually unrelated issues (Häussler, 2018), and that stances on some issues seem to align (Baumann et al, 2021), which may contribute to online friendships, consolidating the social groups and the polarisation between them. These findings highlight the need to better understand how humans respond to multiple and sometimes conflicting opinions, particularly in the online context.…”

Section: Opinion Formation In a Complex Opinion Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Are we always in strife? A longitudinal study of the echo chamber effect in the Australian Twittersphere

Nasim¹,

Weber²,

South³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrary to expectations that the increased connectivity offered by the internet and particularly Online Social Networks (OSNs) would result in broad consensus on contentious issues, we instead frequently observe the formation of polarised echo chambers, in which only one side of an argument is entertained. These can progress to filter bubbles, actively filtering contrasting opinions, resulting in vulnerability to misinformation and increased polarisation on social and political issues. These have real world effects when they spread offline, such as vaccine hesitation and violence. This work seeks to develop a better understanding of how echo chambers manifest in different discussions dealing with different issues over an extended period of time. We explore the activities of two groups of polarised accounts across three Twitter discussions in the Australian context. We found Australian Twitter accounts arguing against marriage equality in 2017 were more likely to support the notion that arsonists were the primary cause of the 2019/2020 Australian bushfires, and those supporting marriage equality argued against that arson narrative. We also found strong evidence that the stance people took on marriage equality in 2017 did not predict their political stance in discussions around the Australian federal election two years later. Although mostly isolated from each other, we observe that in certain situations the polarised groups may interact with the broader community, which offers hope that the echo chambers may be reduced with concerted outreach to members.

show abstract

“…In such groups, where exclusive identities are constructed ( Goodwin, 2004 ; Della Porta, 2018 ), commitment to group position can be represented on an ideological bi-modal continuum, with extreme positions clustering at the end of this continuum – as for example in the cases of polarization between climate change deniers and climate change believers ( McCright and Dunlap, 2011 ; Bliuc et al, 2015 ; Häussler, 2018 ), and between supporters of Leave and Remain campaigns in the context of Brexit ( Goodwin and Heath, 2016 ; Hobolt, 2016 ; Hobolt et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Defining Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Intergroup Polarization Across Political Fault Lines: An Integrative Review

Bliuc

Bouguettaya

Felise³

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We revisit the construct of political polarization and current distinctions between issue-driven and affective polarization. Based on our review of recent research on polarization from psychology, political science, and communication, we propose to treat polarization as a process that integrates the concepts of social identification (collective self-definition) with ideologically opposed camps - that is, psychological groups based on support or opposition to specific socio-political issues and policies (related to issue-driven polarization), and that of ideological and psychological distancing between groups (related to affective polarization). Furthermore, we discuss the foundations of polarizing groups – and more specifically, the role of conflicting collective narratives about social reality in providing an initial platform for polarization in a technologically networked world. In particular, we highlight the importance of online media in facilitating and enhancing polarization between ideologically opposed camps. As a theoretical contribution, the review provides a more functional conceptualization of polarization that can explain how polarization may occur across partisan fault lines and in domains outside of politics. We conclude with a discussion of new pathways to the study of polarization which this integrative conceptualization opens.

show abstract

Heating up the debate? Measuring fragmentation and polarisation in a German climate change hyperlink network

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Opinion-based Homogeneity on YouTube: Combining Sentiment and Social Network Analysis

Opinion-based Homogeneity on YouTube: Combining Sentiment and Social Network Analysis

Are we always in strife? A longitudinal study of the echo chamber effect in the Australian Twittersphere

Online Intergroup Polarization Across Political Fault Lines: An Integrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About