“Birds of a Feather Flock Together” : Bipolarity, Homophily and Intra-Party Communication Degree of Polish MPs on Twitter

Since the contemporary public sphere has largely moved online, Twitter has become the leading platform of political debate. Potentially harmful echo spheres, selective exposure and social media filter bubbles that limit individuals to their own opinions can be especially alarming when it concerns politicians. This paper aims to investigate the degree of homophily among Polish MPs, simultaneously indicating the way politicians form follower communication structures. The analysis of the data gathered from Twitter revealed observable elements of polarization at the political affiliation level, although the level of parliament chambers was found meaningless in that case. The Polish political Twittersphere is dominated by the two biggest parties, accurately reflecting parliament composition. The use of communication structure is examined throughout this paper, ultimately confirming the homophilic behavior of specific politicians’ groups, especially in terms of mutual communication and its effectiveness.

„CIĄGNIE SWÓJ DO SWEGO”. BIPOLARNOŚĆ, HOMOFILIA I KOMUNIKACJA WEWNĄTRZPARTYJNA POLSKICH POSŁÓW NA TWITTERZE

Współczesna sfera publiczna w dużej mierze przeniosła się do Internetu, a Twitter stał się wiodącą platformą debaty politycznej. Potencjalnie szkodliwe bańki informacyjne, które skutkują selektywną ekspozycją na wiadomości w mediach społecznościowych, ograniczają jednostki do ich własnych opinii, co może być szczególnie niepokojące, gdy dotyczy osób podejmujących decyzje polityczne. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zbadanie wzajemnych relacji pomiędzy polskimi parlamentarzystami na Twitterze oraz stworzenie matrycy powiązań pomiędzy politykami reprezentującymi różne partie polityczne. Analiza danych empirycznych z Twittera udowodniła, że istnieją wysoce spolaryzowane struktury parlamentarzystów, które tworzą się w obrębie przynależności politycznej. Z perspektywy aktorów politycznych polska część Twittera zdominowana jest przez obóz Zjednoczonej Prawicy oraz Koalicję Europejską, a jej wewnętrzny podział stanowi odwzorowanie mandatów w parlamencie.

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

• Ahmed, S., Jaidka, K., & Cho, J. (2016). The 2014 Indian Elections on Twitter: A Comparison of Campaign Strategies of Political Parties. Telematics and Informatics. 33(4), 1071–1087. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.03.002.
• Alzahrani, T., & Horadam, K.J. (2016). Community Detection in Bipartite Networks: Algorithms and Case studies. In: J. Lü, X. Yu, G. Chen, & W. Yu (Eds.). Complex Systems and Networks: Dynamics, Controls and Applications (pp. 25–50). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
• Baranowski, P. (2015). Online Political Campaigning During the 2014 Regional Elections in Poland. Media and Communication, 3(4), 35–44. DOI: 10.17645/mac. v3i4.368.
• Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication. London–New York: Routledge.
• Brandes, U., & Erlebach, T. (Eds.) (2005). Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3418. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
• Bruns, A. (2017, September 14–15). Echo Chamber? What Echo Chamber? Reviewing the Evidence. Conference Paper from 6th Biennial Future of Journalism Conference (FOJ17). Cardiff. Retrieved June 17, 2020 from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/113937/.
• Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural Layers of Communication on Twitter. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. 15–28). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Bruns, A., & Highfield, T. (2016). Is Habermas on Twitter? Social Media and the Public Sphere. In: A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbo, A. Larsson, & C. Christensen (Eds.). The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (pp. 56–72). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
• Carrington, P. (2014). Social Network Research. In: S. Dominguez, & B. Hollstein (Eds.). Mixed Methods Social Networks Research: Design and Applications (pp. 35–64). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139227193.004.
• Casero-Ripollés, A., Sintes-Olivella, M., & Franch, P. (2017). The Populist Political Communication Style in Action: Podemos’s Issues and Functions on Twitter during the 2016 Spanish General Election. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(9), 986–1001. DOI: 10.1177/0002764217707624.
• Cheng, J., Romero, D., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Predicting Reciprocity in Social Networks. In: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (pp. 49–56). Boston, Ma. DOI: 10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.2011.110.
• Cogburn, D.L., & Espinoza-Vasquez, F.K. (2011). From Networked Nominee to Networked Nation: Examining the Impact of Web 2.0 and Social Media on Political Participation and Civic Engagement in the 2008 Obama Campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1–2), 189–213. DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2011.540224.
• Contractor, N.S., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2006). Testing Multitheoretical, Multilevel Hypotheses about Organizational Networks: An Analytic Framework and Empirical Example. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 681–703. DOI: 10.5465/ amr.2006.21318925.
• Czyżowski, D., & Porębski, L. (2017). Media społecznościowe w kampanii wyborczej. Wykorzystanie Twittera w polskich wyborach parlamentarnych w roku 2015 [Social Media in Electoral Campaigns: The Use of Twitter in Polish Parliamentary Elections in 2015]. Studia Politologiczne, 45, 165–179.
• Dahl, R.A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
• Del Valle, M.E., & Bravo, R.B. (2018). Echo Chambers in Parliamentary Twitter Networks: The Catalan Case. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1715–1735.
• Dobek-Ostrowska, B. (2017). Towards Professionalization and Americanization: Audiovisual Political Advertising in Poland (1989–2015). In: C. Holtz-Bacha, & M.R. Just (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Political Advertising (pp. 397–408). New York–London: Taylor & Francis.
• Granovetter, M.S. (2005). The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50. DOI: 10.1257/0895330053147958.
• Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative Approaches. In: J. Scott, & P.J. Carrington (Eds.). Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 404–416). London: Sage.
• Hong, S., & Kim, S.H. (2016). Political Polarization on Twitter: Implications for the Use of Social Media in Digital Governments. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 777–782. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007.
• Iacobucci, D. (1994). Graphs and Matrices. In: S. Wasserman, & K. Faust (Eds.). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (pp. 92–166). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511815478.005.
• Jungherr, A. (2014). The Logic of Political Coverage on Twitter: Temporal Dynamics and Content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12087.
• Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter Use in Election Campaigns: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401.
• Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Merton, R.K. (1954). Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis. Freedom and Control in Modern Society, 18(1), 18–66.
• Lee, E., Karimi, F., Jo, H.-H., Strohmaier, M., and Wagner, C. (2017). Homophily explains perception biases in social networks. arXiv preprint: arXiv:1710.08601.
• Leenders, R.Th.A.J. (1997). Longitudinal Behavior of Network Structure and Actor Attributes: Modeling Interdependence of Contagion and Selection. In: P. Doreian, & F. Stokman (Eds.). Evolution of Social Networks (pp. 165–184). London: Routledge.
• Li, X., Liu, Y., & Yao, M. (2016). Openness, Activeness, and Diversity of Information Exchange in the Context of Online Social Networks. In: X. Li (Ed.). Emerging Media: Uses and Dynamics. New York: Routledge.
• Marciniak, E.M. (2020). Społeczna percepcja wyborów 2019 roku. [Social Perception of Election in 2019]. Studia Politologiczne, 55, 309–322. DOI: 10.33896/ SPolit.2020.55.14.
• Marozzo, F., & Bessi, A. (2017). Analyzing Polarization of Social Media Users and News Sites during Political Campaigns. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 8(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s13278-017-0479-5.
• Massa, P. (2011). Trust It Forward: Tyranny of the Majority or Echo Chambers? In: H. Massum, & M. Tovey (Eds.). The Reputation Society: How Online Opinions Are Reshaping the Offline World (pp. 151–161). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Matuszewski, P., & Szabó, G. (2019). Are Echo Chambers Based on Partisanship? Twitter and Political Polarity in Poland and Hungary. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–14. DOI: 10.1177/2056305119837671.
• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev.soc.27.1.415.
• McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory (6th Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
• Messing, S., & Westwood, S.J. (2014). Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. DOI: 10.1177/0093650212466406.
• Newman, M.E.J. (2002). Assortative Mixing in Networks. Physical Review Letters, 89(20), 208701. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.208701.
• Newman, M.E.J. (2003). Mixing Patterns in Networks. Physical Review E, 67(2), 026126. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126.
• Newman, M.E.J. (2010). Networks: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Papacharissi, Z. (2008). The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere, and Beyond. In: A. Chadwick, & P.N. Howard (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 230–245). London–New York: Routledge.
• Park, C.S. (2013). Does Twitter Motivate Involvement in Politics? Tweeting, Opinion Leadership, and Political Engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1641–1648. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.044.
• Passe, J., Drake, C., & Mayger, L. (2018). Homophily, Echo Chambers, & Selective Exposure in Social Networks: What Should Civic Educators Do? The Journal of Social Studies Research, 42(3), 261–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.jssr.2017.08.001.
• Poulakidakos, S., & Veneti, A. (2016). Political Communication and Twitter in Greece: Jumps on the Bandwagon or an Enhancement of the Political Dialogue? In: T. Deželan, & I. Vobič (Eds.). (R)evolutionizing Political Communication through Social Media (pp. 119–146). Hershey: IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9879-6.ch007.
• Rosvall, M., & Bergstrom, C.T. (2007). Maps of Information Flow Reveal Community Structure in Complex Networks. PNAS U.S.A., 105(4), 1118–1123.
• Šćepanović, S., Mishkovski, I., Gonçalves, B., Nguyen, T.H., & Hui, P. (2017). Semantic Homophily in Online Communication: Evidence from Twitter. Online Social Networks and Media, 2, 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.osnem.2017.06.001.
• Schmidt, J.H. (2014). Twitter and the Rise of Personal Publics. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Schulz, W. (2014). Political Communication in Long-Term Perspective. In: C. Reinemann (Ed.). Political Communication (pp. 63–85). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110238174.63.
• Scott, A.J. (2000). The Cultural Economy of Cities: Essays on the Geography of Image- Producing Industries. London: Sage.
• Spohr, D. (2017). Fake News and Ideological Polarization: Filter Bubbles and Selective Exposure on Social Media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. DOI: 10.1177/0266382117722446.
• Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election Campaigning on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35(1), 50–74. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728.
• Stroud, N.J. (2008). Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure. Political Behavior, 30(3), 341–366. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9.
• Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Republic.Com 2.0. Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Szafraniec, K., & Grygieńć, J. (2019). Prawicowość młodych Polaków. Kontekst wyborów parlamentarnych z 2015 roku [The Right-Wing Attitudes of Young Poles: The Context of the 2015 Parliamentary Elections]. Studia Socjologiczne, 2, 5–35. DOI: 10.24425/sts.2019.126138.
• Szczerbiak, A. (2019a). Why Is Poland’s Law and Justice Party Still So Popular? LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/10/01/why-is-polands-law-and-justice-party-stillso-popular/.
• Szczerbiak, A. (2019b). Who Will Win the Polish Election? LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog. Retrieved January 15, 2021 from: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/10/08/who-will-win-the-polish-election/.
• Uslaner, E.M. (2004). Trust, Civic Engagement, and the Internet. Political Communication, 21(2), 223–242. DOI: 10.1080/10584600490443895.
• Vaccari, C., Valeriani, A., Barberá, P., Jost, J.T., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J.A. (2016). Of Echo Chambers and Contrarian Clubs: Exposure to Political Disagreement among German and Italian Users of Twitter. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 1–24. DOI: 10.1177/2056305116664221.
• Woźniak, A. (2015, November 16). Dlaczego Twitter jest w Polsce narzędziem dziennikarzy i polityków? [Why Is Twitter the Tool for Journalists and Politicians?]. Retrieved May 10, 2020 from: https://nowymarketing.pl/a/7572,dlaczego-twitterjest-w-polsce-narzedziem-dziennikarzy-i-politykow.
• Zagała, Z. (2020). Partie polityczne i ich elektoraty. Od sympatii do antagonizmu. Na przykładzie Platformy Obywatelskiej i Prawa i Sprawiedliwości [Political Parties and Their Electorates: From Sympathy to Antagonism. On the Example of Civic Platform and Law and Justice]. Przegląd Politologiczny, 25(2), 193–205. DOI: 10.14746/pp.2020.25.2.14.
• Zhang, H., Dantu, T., & Cangussu, J. (2009). Quantifying Reciprocity in Social Networks. 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (pp. 1031–1035). Vancouver, BC, Canada: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/CSE.2009.399.