Affective and interactional polarization align across countries

Max Falkenberg,Fabiana Zollo,Walter Quattrociocchi,Jürgen Pfeffer,Andrea Baronchelli

2023-11-30

Abstract:Political polarization plays a pivotal and potentially harmful role in a democracy. However, existing studies are often limited to a single country and one form of polarization, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena. Here we investigate how affective and interactional polarization are related across nine countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, UK, USA). First, we show that political interaction networks are polarized on Twitter. Second, we reveal that out-group interactions, defined by the network, are more toxic than in-group interactions, meaning that affective and interactional polarization are aligned. Third, we show that out-group interactions receive lower engagement than in-group interactions. Finally, we show that the political right reference lower reliability media than the political left, and that interactions between politically engaged accounts are limited and rarely reciprocated. These results hold across countries and represent a first step towards a more unified understanding of polarization.

Physics and Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve

This paper aims to explore the relationship between affective polarization and interactional polarization across nine countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Specifically, the researchers aim to answer the following questions:

1. **Do political interaction networks exhibit polarization in these countries?**
- The researchers verified whether political interaction networks in these countries exhibit significant polarization by analyzing political interaction data on Twitter.

2. **Is out-group interaction more toxic than in-group interaction?**
- By analyzing the content of interactions between different groups on Twitter, the researchers explored whether out-group interactions (i.e., interactions between users with different political stances) are more negative and aggressive than in-group interactions (i.e., interactions between users with the same political stance).

3. **Do out-group interactions receive lower engagement than in-group interactions?**
- The researchers examined whether out-group interactions receive lower attention and engagement by analyzing metrics such as the number of likes on interaction content.

4. **Do right-wing political users cite less reliable news sources?**
- By analyzing the reliability scores of news sources shared by right-wing and left-wing political users, the researchers investigated whether right-wing users are more inclined to cite low-credibility news media.

5. **How do politically active users interact with other politically active users?**
- The researchers explored the interaction patterns among politically active users to determine whether these interactions exhibit common ally and adversary structures and whether these interactions are frequently reciprocated.

### Main Findings

1. **Political interaction networks exhibit polarization in all nine countries**:
- The study found that political interaction networks on Twitter exhibit significant left-wing and right-wing clustering in most countries.

2. **Out-group interactions are more toxic than in-group interactions**:
- By analyzing the toxicity scores of interaction content, the study found that negative emotions and aggression are significantly higher in out-group interactions compared to in-group interactions.

3. **Out-group interactions receive lower engagement than in-group interactions**:
- The study found that out-group interaction content typically receives lower engagement metrics, such as the number of likes, compared to in-group interaction content.

4. **Right-wing political users cite less reliable news sources**:
- By analyzing the reliability scores of news sources, the study found that right-wing users are more inclined to cite low-credibility news media.

5. **Interactions among politically active users are limited and rarely reciprocated**:
- The study found that interactions among politically active users are infrequent and are usually not reciprocated, indicating a common ally and adversary structure.

### Significance

This study systematically reveals the relationship between affective polarization and interactional polarization through cross-national data analysis for the first time, providing new insights into the phenomenon of political polarization. These findings help to better understand the forms and potential impacts of political polarization in different countries and provide a scientific basis for developing strategies to reduce political polarization.