More Like this

1. Whose Advantage? Measuring Attention Dynamics across YouTube and Twitter on Controversial Topics

   Lee, JooYoung; Wu, Siqi; Ertugrul, Ali Mert; Lin, Yu-Ru; Xie, Lexing (January 2022, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media)

   The ideological asymmetries have been recently observed in contested online spaces, where conservative voices seem to be relatively more pronounced even though liberals are known to have the population advantage on digital platforms. Most prior research, however, focused on either one single platform or one single political topic. Whether an ideological group garners more attention across platforms and/or topics, and how the attention dynamics evolve over time, have not been explored. In this work, we present a quantitative study that links collective attention across two social platforms -- YouTube and Twitter, centered on online activities surrounding popular videos of three controversial political topics including Abortion, Gun control, and Black Lives Matter over 16 months. We propose several sets of video-centric metrics to characterize how online attention is accumulated for different ideological groups. We find that neither side is on a winning streak: left-leaning videos are overall more viewed, more engaging, but less tweeted than right-leaning videos. The attention time series unfold quicker for left-leaning videos, but span a longer time for right-leaning videos. Network analysis on the early adopters and tweet cascades show that the information diffusion for left-leaning videos tends to involve centralized actors; while that for right-leaning videos starts earlier in the attention lifecycle. In sum, our findings go beyond the static picture of ideological asymmetries in digital spaces and provide a set of methods to quantify attention dynamics across different social platforms. 

   more » « less
2. Do conservatives really have better mental well-being than liberals?

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321573  

   Schaffner, Brian F; Hershewe, Thomas; Kava, Zoe; Strell, Jael (April 2025, PLOS One)

   Daoust, Jean-François (Ed.)

   American conservatives tend to rate their mental health more positively than their liberal counterparts. One explanation for this finding is that conservatives may be more likely to justify existing inequalities in society, leading to a palliative effect on their mental health that does not happen for liberals. Conservatives also score higher on personality and attitude measures, such as religiosity, marital status, and patriotism, which are associated with better mental health. We examine whether this ideological mental health gap holds for a different facet of well-being that is closely related to mental health. Further, we suggest that the ideological mental health gap may have more to do with a stigmatized reaction to the term “mental health” which has become increasingly politicized in the US context since its introduction to literature in the early 20th century. First, we examine whether the conservative-liberal divide in self-assessments of mental health remains once we control for a wide variety of demographics, socioeconomic factors, and recent life experiences. We find that accounting for these alternative explanations reduces the gap by about 40%, but that ideology remains a strong predictor of mental health self-reports. Second, we conducted an experiment where we randomly assigned whether people were asked to evaluate their mental health or their overall mood. While conservatives report much higher mental health ratings, asking instead about overall mood eliminated the gap between liberals and conservatives. One explanation is that rather than a genuine mental health divide, conservatives may inflate their mental health ratings when asked, due to stigma surrounding the term. Another possibility is that ideological differences persist for some aspects of mental well-being, but not others. 

   more » « less
3. Conservatives’ Moral Foundations Are More Densely Connected Than Liberals’ Moral Foundations

   https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220916070  

   Turner-Zwinkels, Felicity M.; Johnson, Branden B.; Sibley, Chris G.; Brandt, Mark J. (May 2020, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin)

   We use network psychometrics to map a subsection of moral belief systems predicted by moral foundations theory (MFT). This approach conceptualizes moral systems as networks, with moral beliefs represented as nodes connected by direct relations. As such, it advances a novel test of MFT’s claim that liberals and conservatives have different systems of foundational moral values, which we test in three large datasets ( NSample1 = 854; NSample2 = 679; NSample3 = 2,572), from two countries (the United States and New Zealand). Results supported our first hypothesis that liberals’ moral systems show more segregation between individualizing and binding foundations than conservatives. Results showed only weak support for our second hypothesis, that this pattern would be more typical of higher educated than less educated liberals/conservatives. Findings support a systems approach to MFT and show the value of modeling moral belief systems as networks. 

   more » « less
4. Political Discussion is Abundant in Non-political Subreddits (and Less Toxic)

   Rajadesingan, Ashwin; Budak, Ceren; Resnick, Paul (May 2021, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media)

   Budak, Ceren; Cha, Meeyoung; Quercia, Daniele; Xie, Lexing (Ed.)

   Research on online political communication has primarily focused on content in explicitly political spaces. In this work, we set out to determine the amount of political talk missed using this approach. Focusing on Reddit, we estimate that nearly half of all political talk takes place in subreddits that host political content less than 25% of the time. In other words, cumulatively, political talk in non-political spaces is abundant. We further examine the nature of political talk and show that political conversations are less toxic in non-political subreddits. Indeed, the average toxicity of political comments replying to a out-partisan in non-political subreddits is less than even the toxicity of co-partisan replies in explicitly political subreddits. 

   more » « less
5. 'Walking Into a Fire Hoping You Don't Catch': Strategies and Designs to Facilitate Cross-Partisan Online Discussions

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3479537  

   rajadesingan, ashwin; Duran, Carolyn; Resnick, Paul; Budak, Ceren (October 2021, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction)

   While cross-partisan conversations are central to a vibrant deliberative democracy, these conversations are hard to have, especially amidst unprecedented levels of partisan animosity we observe today. We report on a qualitative study of 17 US residents who engage with outpartisans on Reddit to understand what they look for in these interactions, and the strategies they adopt. We find that users have multiple, sometimes contradictory expectations of these conversations, ranging from deliberative discussions to entertainment and banter. In aiming to foster 'good' cross-partisan discussions, users make strategic choices on which subreddits to participate in, who to engage with and how to talk to outpartisans, often establishing common ground, complimenting, and remaining dispassionate in their interactions. Further, contrary to offline settings where knowing more about outpartisan interlocutors help manage disagreements, on Reddit, users look to actively learn as little as possible about them for fear that such information may bias their interactions. However, through design probes, we find that users are actually open to knowing certain kinds of information about their interlocutors, such as non-political subreddits that they both participate in, and to having that information made visible to their interlocutors. However, making other information visible, such as the other subreddits that they participate in or their past comments, though potentially humanizing, raises concerns around privacy and misuse of that information for personal attacks especially among women and minority groups. Finally, we identify important challenges and opportunities in designing to improve online cross-partisan interactions in today's hyper-polarized environment. 

   more » « less