IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/safewp/337.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social media, polarization and democracy: A multi-methods analysis of polarized users' interactions on Reddit's r/WallStreetBets

Author

Listed:
  • Massoc, Elsa
  • Lubda, Maximilian

Abstract

In times of increased political polarization, the continuing existence of a deliberative arena where people with antagonistic views may engage with each other in non-violent ways is critical for democracy to live on. Social media are usually not conceived as such arenas. On the contrary, there has been widespread worry about their role in increasing polarization and political violence. This paper suggests a more positive impact of social media on democracy. Our analysis focuses on the subreddit "r/WallStreetBets" (r/WSB) - a finance-related forum that came under the spotlight when its users coordinated a financial attack on hedge funds during the Gamestop saga in early 2021. Based on an original method attributing partisanship scores to users, we present a network analysis of interactions between users at the opposite sides of the political spectrum on r/WSB. We then develop a content analysis of politically relevant threads in which polarized users participate. Our analyses show that r/WSB provides a rare space where users with antagonistic political leanings engage with each other, debate, and even cooperate.

Suggested Citation

  • Massoc, Elsa & Lubda, Maximilian, 2022. "Social media, polarization and democracy: A multi-methods analysis of polarized users' interactions on Reddit's r/WallStreetBets," SAFE Working Paper Series 337, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:safewp:337
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4006283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/249180/1/1786247496.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.4006283?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalla, Joshua L. & Broockman, David E., 2020. "Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 410-425, May.
    2. Christopher A. Bail & Lisa P. Argyle & Taylor W. Brown & John P. Bumpus & Haohan Chen & M. B. Fallin Hunzaker & Jaemin Lee & Marcus Mann & Friedolin Merhout & Alexander Volfovsky, 2018. "Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(37), pages 9216-9221, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Massoc, Elsa Clara & Lubda, Maximilian, 2022. "Social media, polarization and democracy: A multi-methods analysis of polarized users' interactions on Reddit's r/WallStreetBets," LawFin Working Paper Series 28, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    2. Iandoli, Luca & Primario, Simonetta & Zollo, Giuseppe, 2021. "The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Deole, Sumit S. & Huang, Yue, 2020. "Suffering and prejudice: Do negative emotions predict immigration concerns?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 644, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. David L. Dickinson, 2020. "Deliberation enhances the confirmation bias. An examination of politics and religion," Working Papers 20-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. Ignacio-Jesús Serrano-Contreras & Javier García-Marín & Óscar G. Luengo, 2020. "Measuring Online Political Dialogue: Does Polarization Trigger More Deliberation?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 63-72.
    6. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Sarah Schneider-Strawczynski & Jérôme Valette, 2021. "Media Coverage of Immigration and the Polarization of Attitudes," PSE Working Papers halshs-03322229, HAL.
    8. Kendall L. Bailey & Austin Trantham, 2021. "Racial Politics and the Presidency: Analyzing White House Visits by Professional Sports Teams," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 897-919, March.
    9. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    10. Jan Hk{a}z{l}a & Yan Jin & Elchanan Mossel & Govind Ramnarayan, 2019. "A Geometric Model of Opinion Polarization," Papers 1910.05274, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    11. Gil Appel & Lauren Grewal & Rhonda Hadi & Andrew T. Stephen, 2020. "The future of social media in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 79-95, January.
    12. Charlson, G., 2022. "In platforms we trust: misinformation on social networks in the presence of social mistrust," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2204, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Joshua Uyheng & Kathleen M. Carley, 2020. "Bots and online hate during the COVID-19 pandemic: case studies in the United States and the Philippines," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 445-468, November.
    14. Hajime Tomura, 2022. "What Will Be the Impact of Fintech on the Payment System? A Perspective from Money Creation," Working Papers 2205, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    15. Matthew I. Jones & Antonio D. Sirianni & Feng Fu, 2022. "Polarization, abstention, and the median voter theorem," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Hagmann, David & minson, julia & Tinsley, Catherine, 2020. "Personal Narratives Build Trust in Ideological Conflict," OSF Preprints sw7nz, Center for Open Science.
    17. Anna Keuchenius & Petter Törnberg & Justus Uitermark, 2021. "Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-23, August.
    18. Amirarsalan Rajabi & Alexander V. Mantzaris & Kuldip Singh Atwal & Ivan Garibay, 2021. "Exploring the disparity of influence between users in the discussion of Brexit on Twitter," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 903-917, November.
    19. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    20. Di Benedetto, Andrea & Wieners, Claudia E. & Dijkstra, Henk A. & Stoof, Henk T.C., 2023. "Media preference increases polarization in an agent-based election model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 626(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social media; polarization; democracy; investment forum; social media; polarization; democracy; investment forum;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:safewp:337. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csafede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.