Related papers: Moral consensus and divergence in partisan language use

Moral consensus and divergence in partisan language use

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09618v1
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 16:50:26 GMT
Title: Moral consensus and divergence in partisan language use
Authors: Nakwon Rim, Marc G. Berman and Yuan Chang Leong
Abstract summary: Polarization has increased substantially in political discourse, contributing to a widening partisan divide. We analyzed large-scale, real-world language use in Reddit communities and in news outlets to uncover psychological dimensions along which partisan language is divided.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Abstract: Polarization has increased substantially in political discourse, contributing to a widening partisan divide. In this paper, we analyzed large-scale, real-world language use in Reddit communities (294,476,146 comments) and in news outlets (6,749,781 articles) to uncover psychological dimensions along which partisan language is divided. Using word embedding models that captured semantic associations based on co-occurrences of words in vast textual corpora, we identified patterns of affective polarization present in natural political discourse. We then probed the semantic associations of words related to seven political topics (e.g., abortion, immigration) along the dimensions of morality (moral-to-immoral), threat (threatening-to-safe), and valence (pleasant-to-unpleasant). Across both Reddit communities and news outlets, we identified a small but systematic divergence in the moral associations of words between text sources with different partisan leanings. Moral associations of words were highly correlated between conservative and liberal text sources (average $\rho$ = 0.96), but the differences remained reliable to enable us to distinguish text sources along partisan lines with above 85% classification accuracy. These findings underscore that despite a shared moral understanding across the political spectrum, there are consistent differences that shape partisan language and potentially exacerbate political polarization. Our results, drawn from both informal interactions on social media and curated narratives in news outlets, indicate that these trends are widespread. Leveraging advanced computational techniques, this research offers a fresh perspective that complements traditional methods in political attitudes.

Related papers

Bubble reachers and uncivil discourse in polarized online public sphere [2.107064828705641]
We study how ideologically neutral bubble reachers differ from ideologically partisan accounts in the level of uncivil discourse they provoke. Our results suggest that while ideologically neutral bubble reachers support less uncivil discourse in Canada, the opposite relationship holds in Brazil. This indicates that bubble reaching and incivility are moderated by the national political context.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-19T23:59:04Z)
Navigating Multidimensional Ideologies with Reddit's Political Compass: Economic Conflict and Social Affinity [3.850666668546735]
We analyze social interactions on Reddit under the lens of a multi-dimensional ideological framework: the political compass. By leveraging their self-declarations, we disentangle the ideological dimensions of users into economic (left-right) and social (libertarian richness-authoritarian) axes. We find significant homophily for interactions along the social axis of the political compass and demographic attributes. In contrast, we uncover a significant heterophily along the economic axis: left/right interactions exceed expectations by 10%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-24T18:49:19Z)
Understanding Divergent Framing of the Supreme Court Controversies: Social Media vs. News Outlets [56.67097829383139]
We focus on the nuanced distinctions in framing of social media and traditional media outlets concerning a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings. We observe significant polarization in the news media's treatment of affirmative action and abortion rights, whereas the topic of student loans tends to exhibit a greater degree of consensus.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-18T06:40:21Z)
Evolving linguistic divergence on polarizing social media [0.0]
We quantify divergence in topics of conversation and word frequencies, messaging sentiment, and lexical semantics of words and emoji. While US American English remains largely intelligible within its large speech community, our findings point at areas where miscommunication may arise.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-04T15:21:55Z)
The Face of Populism: Examining Differences in Facial Emotional Expressions of Political Leaders Using Machine Learning [50.24983453990065]
We use a deep-learning approach to process a sample of 220 YouTube videos of political leaders from 15 different countries. We observe statistically significant differences in the average score of negative emotions between groups of leaders with varying degrees of populist rhetoric.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-19T18:32:49Z)
Bias or Diversity? Unraveling Fine-Grained Thematic Discrepancy in U.S. News Headlines [63.52264764099532]
We use a large dataset of 1.8 million news headlines from major U.S. media outlets spanning from 2014 to 2022. We quantify the fine-grained thematic discrepancy related to four prominent topics - domestic politics, economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs. Our findings indicate that on domestic politics and social issues, the discrepancy can be attributed to a certain degree of media bias.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-28T03:31:37Z)
Dialectograms: Machine Learning Differences between Discursive Communities [0.0]
We take a step towards leveraging the richness of the full embedding space by using word embeddings to map out how words are used differently. We provide a new measure of the degree to which words are used differently that overcomes the tendency for existing measures to pick out low frequent or polysemous words.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-11T11:32:08Z)
Computational Assessment of Hyperpartisanship in News Titles [55.92100606666497]
We first adopt a human-guided machine learning framework to develop a new dataset for hyperpartisan news title detection. Overall the Right media tends to use proportionally more hyperpartisan titles. We identify three major topics including foreign issues, political systems, and societal issues that are suggestive of hyperpartisanship in news titles.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-16T05:56:58Z)
Millions of Co-purchases and Reviews Reveal the Spread of Polarization and Lifestyle Politics across Online Markets [68.8204255655161]
We study the pervasiveness of polarization and lifestyle politics over different product segments in a diverse market. We sample 234.6 million relations among 21.8 million market entities to find product categories that are politically relevant, aligned, and polarized. Cultural products are 4 times more polarized than any other segment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-01-17T18:16:37Z)
Reaching the bubble may not be enough: news media role in online political polarization [58.720142291102135]
A way of reducing polarization would be by distributing cross-partisan news among individuals with distinct political orientations. This study investigates whether this holds in the context of nationwide elections in Brazil and Canada.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-18T11:34:04Z)
Detecting Group Beliefs Related to 2018's Brazilian Elections in Tweets A Combined Study on Modeling Topics and Sentiment Analysis [0.0]
2018's Brazilian presidential elections highlighted the influence of alternative media and social networks, such as Twitter. In this work, we perform an analysis covering politically motivated discourses related to the second round in Brazilian elections. We collect a set of tweets related to political hashtags at that moment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-31T10:58:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.