Search

Funding Information: This research is part of the ECANET-consortium (Echo Chambers, Experts and Activists: Networks of Mediated Political Communication), part of the Media and Society research programme (2019-2022) funded by the Academy of Finland (grant number: 320781). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Owner/Author. Quantifying the amount of polarization is crucial for understanding and studying political polarization in political and social systems. Several methods are used commonly to measure polarization in social networks by purely inspecting their structure. We analyse eight of such methods and show that all of them yield high polarization scores even for random networks with similar density and degree distributions to typical real-world networks. Further, some of the methods are sensitive to degree distributions and relative sizes of the polarized groups. We propose normalization to the existing scores and a minimal set of tests that a score should pass in order for it to be suitable for separating polarized networks from random noise. The performance of the scores increased by 38%-220% after normalization in a classification task of 203 networks. Further, we find that the choice of method is not as important as normalization, after which most of the methods have better performance than the best-performing method before normalization. This work opens up the possibility to critically assess and compare the features and performance of different methods for measuring structural polarization.

Funding Information: This research is part of the ECANET-consortium (Echo Chambers, Experts and Activists: Networks of Mediated Political Communication), part of the Media and Society research programme (2019-2022) funded by the Academy of Finland (grant number: 320781). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Owner/Author. Quantifying the amount of polarization is crucial for understanding and studying political polarization in political and social systems. Several methods are used commonly to measure polarization in social networks by purely inspecting their structure. We analyse eight of such methods and show that all of them yield high polarization scores even for random networks with similar density and degree distributions to typical real-world networks. Further, some of the methods are sensitive to degree distributions and relative sizes of the polarized groups. We propose normalization to the existing scores and a minimal set of tests that a score should pass in order for it to be suitable for separating polarized networks from random noise. The performance of the scores increased by 38%-220% after normalization in a classification task of 203 networks. Further, we find that the choice of method is not as important as normalization, after which most of the methods have better performance than the best-performing method before normalization. This work opens up the possibility to critically assess and compare the features and performance of different methods for measuring structural polarization.

Characterising the spreading of ideas within echo chambers is essential for understanding polarisation. In this article, we explore the characteristics of popular and viral content in climate change discussions on Twitter around the 2019 announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize, where we find the retweet network of users to be polarised into two well-separated groups of activists and sceptics. Operationalising popularity as the number of retweets and virality as the spreading probability inferred using an independent cascade model, we find that the viral themes echo and differ from the popular themes in interesting ways. Most importantly, we find that the most viral themes in the two groups reflect different types of bonds that tie the community together, yet both function to enhance ingroup connections while repulsing outgroup engagement. With this, our study sheds light, from an information-spreading perspective, on the formation and upkeep of echo chambers in climate discussions.