skip to main content
10.1145/2389661.2389665acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Political polarization and popularity in online participatory media: an integrated approach

Published:02 November 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present our approach to online popularity and its applications to political science, aiming at the creation of agent-based models that reproduce patterns of popularity in participatory media. We illustrate our approach analyzing a dataset from Youtube, composed of the view statistics and comments for the videos of the U.S. presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012. Using sentiment analysis, we quantify the collective emotions expressed by the viewers, finding that democrat campaigns elicited more positive collective emotions than republican campaigns. Techniques from computational social science allow us to measure virality of the videos of each campaign, to find that democrat videos are shared faster but republican ones are remembered longer inside the community. Last we present our work in progress in voting advice applications, and our results analyzing the data from choose4greece.com. We show how we assess the policy differences between parties and their voters, and how voting advice applications can be extended to test our agent-based models.

References

  1. S. Asur, B. A. Huberman, G. Szabo, and C. Wang. Trends in Social Media: Persistence and Decay. In ICWSM'11, Palo Alto, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. F. Berelson, Bernard R. Lazarsfeld and W. N. McPhee. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press, 1954.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. P. Borgatti, A. Mehra, D. J. Brass, and G. Labianca. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916):892--895, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. M. D. Conover, B. Gonc, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Partisan Asymmetries in Online Political Activity. EPJ DataScience, 1(6):1--17, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. D. Conover, B. Goncalves, J. Ratkiewicz, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Predicting the Political Alignment of Twitter Users. In SocialCom'11, pages 192--199, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. R. Crane and D. Sornette. Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a social system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(41):15649--15653, Oct. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. A. Downs. An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 65(2):135--150, 1957.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. L. Festinger. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7:117--140, 1954.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. A. Garas, D. Garcia, M. Skowron, and F. Schweitzer. Emotional persistence in online chatting communities. Scientific Reports, 2:402, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. D. Garcia and F. Schweitzer. Emotions in Product Reviews--Empirics and Models. In SocialCom'11, pages 483--488, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. D. Gayo-Avello. Nepotistic Relationships in Twitter and their Impact on Rank Prestige Algorithms. In Congreso Espa\ nol de Recuperación de Información, page 31, Madrid, Spain, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Gayo-avello. I Wanted to Predict Elections with Twitter and all I got was this Lousy Paper - A Balanced Survey on Election Prediction using Twitter Data. arXiv:1204.6441v1, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Huckfeldt. Interdependence, density dependence, and networks in politics. American Politics Research, 37(5):921--950, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. O. Kucuktunc, B. B. Cambazoglu, I. Weber, and H. Ferhatosmanoglu. A large-scale sentiment analysis for Yahoo! answers. In WSDM'12, page 633, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Lacy and P. Paolino. Testing proximity versus directional voting using experiments. Electoral Studies, 29:460--471, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. Ladner and J. Pianzola. Do voting advice applications have an effect on electoral participation and voter turnout? Electronic Participation, pages 211--224, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Leskovec, L. A. Adamic, and B. A. Huberman. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web, 1(1):39, May 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Lorenz. Zur Methode der agenten-basierten Simulation in der Politikwissenschaft am Beispiel von Meinungsdynamik und Parteienwettstreit. In T. Brauninger, A. Bachtiger, and S. Shikano, editors, Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie. Band 7: Experiment und Simulation. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27:pp. 415--444, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. F. Mendez. Matching voters with political parties and candidates: An empirical test of four algorithms. International Journal of Electronic Governance, (Special issue on Voting Advice Applications and the State of the Art), forthcoming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Pettit. Democracy, electoral and contestatory. In I. Shapiro and S. Macedo, editors, Designing Democratic Institutions. Nomos, NYU Press, New York, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Ramonaité. Voting advice applications in lithuania: Promoting programmatic competition or breeding populism? Policy and Internet, 2(1):117--141, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. F. Schweitzer and D. Garcia. An agent-based model of collective emotions in online communities. The European Physical Journal B, 77(4):533--545, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. E. R. Smith and F. R. Conrey. Agent-based modeling: a new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 11(1):87--104, Feb. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. G. Szabo and B. A. Huberman. Predicting the popularity of online content. Communications of the ACM, 53(8):80, Aug. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Thelwall, K. Buckley, and G. Paltoglou. Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2):406--418, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Thelwall, K. Buckley, and G. Paltoglou. Sentiment strength detection for the social web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1):163--173, Jan. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Thelwall, K. Buckley, G. Paltoglou, D. Cai, and A. Kappas. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12):2544--2558, Dec. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Thurman and U. Gasser. Three case studies from switzerland: Smartvote. Berkman Center Research Publication, No. 2009-03.3, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Tomz and R. P. Van Houweling. Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review, 102(03):303--318, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. P. Van Mieghem. Human Psychology of Common Appraisal: The Reddit Score. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 13(6):1404--1406, Dec. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. S. Walgrave, M. Nuytemans, and K. Pepermans. Voting aid applications and the effect of statement selection. West European Politics, 32(6):1161--1180, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. A. Westholm. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. The American Political Science Review, 91(4):865--883, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Political polarization and popularity in online participatory media: an integrated approach

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          PLEAD '12: Proceedings of the first edition workshop on Politics, elections and data
          November 2012
          44 pages
          ISBN:9781450317139
          DOI:10.1145/2389661

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 November 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          PLEAD '12 Paper Acceptance Rate6of8submissions,75%Overall Acceptance Rate9of18submissions,50%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader