In-Group Love, Out-Group Hate: A Framework to Measure Affective Polarization via Contentious Online Discussions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14414v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 23:58:13 GMT
• Title: In-Group Love, Out-Group Hate: A Framework to Measure Affective Polarization via Contentious Online Discussions
• Abstract summary: We introduce a discrete choice model that captures decision-making within affectively polarized social networks.<n>We propose a statistical inference method estimate key parameters -- in-group love and out-group hate -- from social media data.
• Score: 2.8963943201523796
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Affective polarization, the emotional divide between ideological groups marked by in-group love and out-group hate, has intensified in the United States, driving contentious issues like masking and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its societal impact, existing models of opinion change fail to account for emotional dynamics nor offer methods to quantify affective polarization robustly and in real-time. In this paper, we introduce a discrete choice model that captures decision-making within affectively polarized social networks and propose a statistical inference method estimate key parameters -- in-group love and out-group hate -- from social media data. Through empirical validation from online discussions about the COVID-19 pandemic, we demonstrate that our approach accurately captures real-world polarization dynamics and explains the rapid emergence of a partisan gap in attitudes towards masking and lockdowns. This framework allows for tracking affective polarization across contentious issues has broad implications for fostering constructive online dialogues in digital spaces.

Related papers

• Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models [65.21691850622413]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with humans.<n>We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies.<n>We show that stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:50:56Z)
• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Strategies for preventing and reversing polarized online discourse [41.99844472131922]
  Political polarization poses a variety of challenges for modern democracies.<n>Finding ways to promote constructive discourse while maintaining free expression has proved a challenge for social media platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T17:52:19Z)
• A Natural Language Agentic Approach to Study Affective Polarization [2.6363860776602333]
  Affective polarization has been central to political and social studies, with growing focus on social media.<n>We present a multi-agent model providing a comprehensive approach to studying affective polarization in social media.<n>We develop a platform leveraging large language models (LLMs) to construct virtual communities where agents engage in discussions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T08:02:58Z)
• Measuring Social Media Polarization Using Large Language Models and Heuristic Rules [0.0]
  This study systematically analyze and quantify affective polarization in discussions on divisive topics such as climate change and gun control.<n>By combining AI-driven content annotation with domain-informed scoring, our framework offers a scalable and interpretable approach to measuring affective polarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-02T01:11:58Z)
• Part-Aware Bottom-Up Group Reasoning for Fine-Grained Social Interaction Detection [82.70752567211251]
  We propose a part-aware bottom-up group reasoning framework for fine-grained social interaction detection.<n>The proposed method infers social groups and their interactions using body part features and their interpersonal relations.<n>Our model first detects individuals and enhances their features using part-aware cues, and then infers group configuration by associating individuals via similarity-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T17:33:03Z)
• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• Fairness Mediator: Neutralize Stereotype Associations to Mitigate Bias in Large Language Models [66.5536396328527]
  LLMs inadvertently absorb spurious correlations from training data, leading to stereotype associations between biased concepts and specific social groups. We propose Fairness Mediator (FairMed), a bias mitigation framework that neutralizes stereotype associations. Our framework comprises two main components: a stereotype association prober and an adversarial debiasing neutralizer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T14:23:06Z)
• Quantifying Polarization: A Comparative Study of Measures and Methods [2.0249250133493195]
  Political polarization, a key driver of social fragmentation, has drawn increasing attention for its role in shaping online and offline discourse. This study evaluates five widely used polarization measures, testing their strengths and weaknesses with synthetic datasets. We present a novel adaptation of Kleinberg's burst detection algorithm to improve mode detection in polarized distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T16:43:23Z)
• Emergence of human-like polarization among large language model agents [61.622596148368906]
  We simulate a networked system involving thousands of large language model agents, discovering their social interactions, result in human-like polarization. Similarities between humans and LLM agents raise concerns about their capacity to amplify societal polarization, but also hold the potential to serve as a valuable testbed for identifying plausible strategies to mitigate it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T11:45:05Z)
• Who Sets the Agenda on Social Media? Ideology and Polarization in Online Debates [34.82692226532414]
  This study analyzes large-scale Twitter data from three global debates -- Climate Change, COVID-19, and the Russo-Ukrainian War. Our findings reveal that discussions are not primarily shaped by specific categories of actors, such as media or activists, but by shared ideological alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T16:48:22Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Bridging or Breaking: Impact of Intergroup Interactions on Religious Polarization [10.640364016644883]
  We examine whether intergroup interactions around important events affect polarization between majority and minority groups in social networks. We use data on the religious identity of nearly 700,000 Indian Twitter users engaging in COVID-19-related discourse during 2020. We find that for political and social events, intergroup interactions reduce polarization. This decline is weaker for individuals at the extreme who already exhibit high conformity to their group. In contrast, during communal events, intergroup interactions can increase group conformity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T07:21:09Z)
• Mitigating Framing Bias with Polarity Minimization Loss [56.24404488440295]
  Framing bias plays a significant role in exacerbating political polarization by distorting the perception of actual events. We propose a new loss function that encourages the model to minimize the polarity difference between the polarized input articles to reduce framing bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T09:50:23Z)
• Decoding the Silent Majority: Inducing Belief Augmented Social Graph with Large Language Model for Response Forecasting [74.68371461260946]
  SocialSense is a framework that induces a belief-centered graph on top of an existent social network, along with graph-based propagation to capture social dynamics. Our method surpasses existing state-of-the-art in experimental evaluations for both zero-shot and supervised settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T06:17:02Z)
• Fooling Polarization-based Vision using Locally Controllable Polarizing Projection [55.40484331029597]
  We warn the community of the vulnerability of polarization-based vision, which can be more serious than RGB-based vision. By adapting a commercial LCD projector, we achieve locally controllable polarizing projection, which is successfully utilized to fool state-of-the-art polarization-based vision algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-31T08:48:57Z)
• Social Influence Dialogue Systems: A Scoping Survey of the Efforts Towards Influence Capabilities of Dialogue Systems [50.57882213439553]
  Social influence dialogue systems are capable of persuasion, negotiation, and therapy. There exists no formal definition or category for dialogue systems with these skills. This study serves as a comprehensive reference for social influence dialogue systems to inspire more dedicated research and discussion in this emerging area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T17:57:23Z)
• Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: An annotated review of measures and reduction methods [0.0]
  Polarization arises when the underlying network becomes characterized by highly connected groups with weak inter-group connectivity. This work presents an annotated review of network polarization measures and models used to handle the polarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-27T21:23:27Z)
• Perspective-taking to Reduce Affective Polarization on Social Media [11.379010432760241]
  We deploy a randomized field experiment through a browser extension to 1,611 participants on Twitter. We find that simply exposing participants to "outgroup" feeds enhances engagement, but not an understanding of why others hold their political views. framing the experience in familiar, empathic terms by prompting participants to recall a disagreement does not affect engagement, but does increase their ability to understand opposing views.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-11T20:25:10Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.