Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media

被引:277
作者
Rathje, Steve [1 ]
Van Bavel, Jay J. [2 ]
van der Linden, Sander [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Dept Psychol, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, England
[2] NYU, Dept Psychol, Ctr Neural Sci, 6 Washington Pl, New York, NY 10003 USA
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
social media; polarization; intergroup; out-group; social identity; MORALIZED CONTENT; NEWS; POLARIZATION; DIFFUSION; PARTISANSHIP; OPINION; MODEL; SELF;
D O I
10.1073/pnas.2024292118
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 70 条
[21]   Moral outrage in the digital age [J].
Crockett, M. J. .
NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2017, 1 (11) :769-771
[22]   The spreading of misinformation online [J].
Del Vicario, Michela ;
Bessi, Alessandro ;
Zollo, Fabiana ;
Petroni, Fabio ;
Scala, Antonio ;
Caldarelli, Guido ;
Stanley, H. Eugene ;
Quattrociocchi, Walter .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2016, 113 (03) :554-559
[23]   Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America [J].
Druckman, James N. ;
Klar, Samara ;
Krupnikov, Yanna ;
Levendusky, Matthew ;
Ryan, John Barry .
NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2021, 5 (01) :28-38
[24]   How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation [J].
Druckman, James N. ;
Peterson, Erik ;
Slothuus, Rune .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2013, 107 (01) :57-79
[25]   How Many People Live in Political Bubbles on Social Media? Evidence From Linked Survey and Twitter Data [J].
Eady, Gregory ;
Nagler, Jonathan ;
Guess, Andy ;
Zilinsky, Jan ;
Tucker, Joshua A. .
SAGE OPEN, 2019, 9 (01)
[26]  
Fan R., 2020, WEAK TIES STRENGTHEN
[27]   Political sectarianism in America [J].
Finkel, Eli J. ;
Bail, Christopher A. ;
Cikara, Mina ;
Ditto, Peter H. ;
Iyengar, Shanto ;
Klar, Samara ;
Mason, Lilliana ;
McGrath, Mary C. ;
Nyhan, Brendan ;
Rand, David G. ;
Skitka, Linda J. ;
Tucker, Joshua A. ;
Van Bavel, Jay J. ;
Wang, Cynthia S. ;
Druckman, James N. .
SCIENCE, 2020, 370 (6516) :533-536
[28]   Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic [J].
Green, Jon ;
Edgerton, Jared ;
Naftel, Daniel ;
Shoub, Kelsey ;
Cranmer, Skyler J. .
SCIENCE ADVANCES, 2020, 6 (28)
[29]  
Hansen L. K., 2011, Future Information Technology Communications in Computer and Information Science, P34, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-22309-9_5
[30]   Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization [J].
Hetherington, MJ .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2001, 95 (03) :619-631