Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
173 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Why do people think liberals drink lattes? How social media afforded self-presentation can shape subjective social sorting (2404.02338v2)

Published 2 Apr 2024 in cs.SI

Abstract: Social sorting, the alignment of social identities, affiliations, and/or preferences with partisan groups, can increase in-party attachment and decrease out-party tolerance. We propose that self-presentation afforded by social media profiles fosters subjective social sorting by shaping perceptions of alignments between non-political and political identifiers. Unlike previous work, we evaluate social sorting of naturally occurring, public-facing identifiers in social media profiles selected using a bottom-up approach. Using a sample of 50 million X users collected five times between 2016 and 2018, we identify users who define themselves politically and generate networks representing simultaneous co-occurrence of identifiers in profiles. We then systematically measure the alignment of non-political identifiers along political dimensions, revealing alignments that reinforce existing associations, reveal unexpected relationships, and reflect online and offline events. We find that while most identifiers bridge political divides, social sorting of identifiers along political lines is occurring to some degree in X profiles. Our results have implications for understanding the role of social media in facilitating (the perception of) polarization and polarization mitigation strategies such as bridging interventions and algorithms.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. \bibcommenthead
  2. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of us elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies 41: 12–22 .
  3. The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics 80(3): 964–981 .
  4. Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in american public opinion. American Journal of Sociology 114(2): 408–446 .
  5. Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Electoral Studies 56: 90–101 .
  6. Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological science 26(10): 1531–1542 .
  7. Crosscutting social circles: Testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. Routledge.
  8. Brewer, M.B. and K.P. Pierce. 2005. Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(3): 428–437 .
  9. Political polarization on twitter. In Proceedings of the international aaai conference on web and social media, Volume 5, pp.  89–96.
  10. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data science 1(1): 1–19 .
  11. Coser, L.A. 1956. The functions of social conflict, Volume 9. Routledge.
  12. DellaPosta, D. 2020. Pluralistic collapse: The “oil spill” model of mass opinion polarization. American Sociological Review 85(3): 507–536 .
  13. Why do liberals drink lattes? American Journal of Sociology 120(5): 1473–1511 .
  14. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American political science review 107(1): 57–79 .
  15. Enders, A.M. and M.T. Armaly. 2019. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior 41: 815–839 .
  16. Partisan styles of self-presentation in u.s. twitter bios. Scientific Reports 14(1077): 565–588 .
  17. Political polarization in online news consumption. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Volume 15, pp.  152–162.
  18. A long-term analysis of polarization on twitter. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and social media, Volume 11, pp.  528–531.
  19. A measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Volume 7, pp.  215–224.
  20. Hopkins, D.A. 2022. How trump changed the republican party—and the democrats, too. The Trump Effect: Disruption and Its Consequences in US Politics and Government: 21 .
  21. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states. Annual review of political science 22: 129–146 .
  22. Duped by bots: Why some are better than others at detecting fake social media personas. Human factors 66(1): 88–102 .
  23. Kreis, R. 2017. The “tweet politics” of president trump. Journal of language and politics 16(4): 607–618 .
  24. Levendusky, M. 2009. The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
  25. Becoming “us” in digital spaces: How online users creatively and strategically exploit social media affordances to build up social identity. Acta Psychologica 228: 103643 .
  26. Measuring stereotypes using entity-centric data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09548 .
  27. Mangum, M. 2013. The racial underpinnings of party identification and political ideology. Social Science Quarterly 94(5): 1222–1244 .
  28. I tweet honestly, i tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society 13(1): 114–133 .
  29. Mason, L. 2015. “i disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American journal of political science 59(1): 128–145 .
  30. Mason, L. 2016. A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 351–377 .
  31. One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology 39: 257–277 .
  32. Fightin’words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis 16(4): 372–403 .
  33. The political landscape of the us twitterverse. Political Communication 39(5): 565–588 .
  34. Ng, L.H.X. and K.M. Carley 2023. Botbuster: Multi-platform bot detection using a mixture of experts. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Volume 17, pp.  686–697.
  35. Repeating stereotypes: Increased belief and subsequent discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology 52(3): 528–537 .
  36. How trump won: the role of social media sentiment in political elections .
  37. Oliver, J.E. and W.M. Rahn. 2016. Rise of the trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667(1): 189–206 .
  38. Ovadya, A. 2022. Bridging-based ranking: How platform recommendation systems might reduce division and strengthen democracy. Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs .
  39. A method to analyze multiple social identities in twitter bios. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW2): 1–35 .
  40. A high-dimensional approach to measuring online polarization. Journal of Computational Social Science: 1–32 .
  41. Social media and political engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project 19(1): 2–13 .
  42. The rise of political influencers—perspectives on a trend towards meaningful content. Frontiers in Communication 6: 752656 .
  43. Roccas, S. and M.B. Brewer. 2002. Social identity complexity. Personality and social psychology review 6(2): 88–106 .
  44. Rogers, N. and J.J. Jones. 2021. Using twitter bios to measure changes in self-identity: Are americans defining themselves more politically over time? Journal of Social Computing 2(1): 1–13 .
  45. American politics in two dimensions: Partisan and ideological identities versus anti-establishment orientations. American Journal of Political Science 65(4): 877–895 .
  46. Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen americans’ democratic attitudes .
  47. Political bias and factualness in news sharing across more than 100,000 online communities. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Volume 15, pp.  796–807.
  48. Perceiving political polarization in the united states: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(2): 145–158 .
  49. Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34: 223–228 .
  50. Phans, stans and cishets: Self-presentation effects on content propagation in tumblr. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Web Science, pp.  39–48.
Citations (2)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.