IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v13y2023i1p5-d1304138.html

Reciprocal Communication and Political Deliberation on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Ackland

    (School of Sociology, Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia)

  • Felix Gumbert

    (Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany)

  • Ole Pütz

    (Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany)

  • Bryan Gertzel

    (School of Sociology, Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia)

  • Matthias Orlikowski

    (Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany)

Abstract

Social media platforms such as Twitter/X are increasingly important for political communication but the empirical question as to whether such communication enhances democratic consensus building (the ideal of deliberative democracy) or instead contributes to societal polarisation via fostering of hate speech and “information disorders” such as echo chambers is worth exploring. Political deliberation involves reciprocal communication between users, but much of the recent research into politics on social media has focused on one-to-many communication, in particular the sharing and diffusion of information on Twitter via retweets. This paper presents a new approach to studying reciprocal political communication on Twitter, with a focus on extending network-analytic indicators of deliberation. We use the Twitter v2 API to collect a new dataset (#debatenight2020) of reciprocal communication on Twitter during the first debate of the 2020 US presidential election and show that a hashtag-based collection alone would have collected only 1% of the debate-related communication. Previous work into using social network analysis to measure deliberation has involved using discussion tree networks to quantify the extent of argumentation (maximum depth) and representation (maximum width); we extend these measures by explicitly incorporating reciprocal communication (via triad census) and the political partisanship of users (inferred via usage of partisan hashtags). Using these methods, we find evidence for reciprocal communication among partisan actors, but also point to a need for further research to understand what forms this communication takes.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Ackland & Felix Gumbert & Ole Pütz & Bryan Gertzel & Matthias Orlikowski, 2023. "Reciprocal Communication and Political Deliberation on Twitter," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:5-:d:1304138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/1/5/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/1/5/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Lisa Oswald & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ralph Hertwig, 2023. "A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 74-101, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Catalina Quinchía-Saavedra & José Alberto Castañeda García & Juan Miguel Rey-Pino, 2025. "Tweeting for peace: an analysis of twitter use in Colombia's peace process," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 22(3), pages 603-630, September.

    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. Shuyang Lin, 2024. "A synthesis of Kantian ethics and Rousseauvian General Will in justifying the moral ground of political laws," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Jacob N. Shapiro, 2024. "Instrumenting the Online Information Environment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 715(1), pages 38-59, September.
    3. Vanessa Russo & Mara Maretti, 2025. "Electoral propaganda in digital space: profiling Facebook use in the Italian general election of 2018," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 4439-4459, October.
    4. Cariolle, Joël & Elkhateeb, Yasmine & Maurel, Mathilde, 2024. "Misinformation technology: Internet use and political misperceptions in Africa," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 400-433.
    5. Danowski, James A., 2025. "E-government and ideological polarization: A cross-national study of political communication," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Kleber Andrade Oliveira & Pietro Traversa & Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda & Yamir Moreno, 2026. "Rumor propagation on hypergraphs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 17(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Darius, Philipp & Drews, Wiebke & Neumeier, Andreas & Riedl, Jasmin, 2025. "Radical populist parties receive greater audience support on social media: a cross-platform analysis of digital campaigning for the 2024 European Parliament election," SocArXiv 42vfx_v1, Center for Open Science.
    8. Paquin, Vincent & Miconi, Diana & Aversa, Samantha & Johnson-Lafleur, Janique & Côté, Sylvana & Geoffroy, Marie-Claude & Gülöksüz, Sinan, 2025. "Social and mental health pathways to institutional trust: A cohort study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 379(C).
    9. Guy Aridor & Rafael Jiménez-Durán & Ro'ee Levy & Lena Song, 2024. "The Economics of Social Media," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1422-1474, December.
    10. Xia, Ziqian & Ye, Jinquan & Debnath, Ramit, 2025. "A Comment on "A Systematic Review of Worldwide Causal and Correlational Evidence on Digital Media and Democracy" by Lorenz-Spreen et al., (2023)," I4R Discussion Paper Series 206, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    11. David Hartmann & Sonja Mei Wang & Lena Pohlmann & Bettina Berendt, 2025. "A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 1-59, May.
    12. Maurel, Mathilde & Pernet, Thomas, 2025. "Internet Use and understanding democracy in Africa," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1571, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    13. Jinghua Piao & Fang Zhang & Tianpei Ren & Fengli Xu & Jinglei Zhou & Jun Su & Peng Ru & Yong Li, 2025. "Polarization of public opinions on feminism in China," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Max Falkenberg & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Jürgen Pfeffer & Andrea Baronchelli, 2024. "Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Magalhães, João C. & Keller, Clara Iglesias & Gorwa, Robert, 2025. "The Great Sysop: Elon Musk, X, and the Emergence of Platform Illiberalism," SocArXiv 6grbc_v2, Center for Open Science.
    16. Boken, Johannes & Draca, Mirko & Mastrorocco, Nicola & Ornaghi, Arianna, 2023. "The Returns to Viral Media: The Case of US Campaign Contributions," CEPR Discussion Papers 18337, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Alex O. Acheampong & John Taden, 2025. "Does Social Media Penetration Enhance Democratic Institutions? Evidence from Varieties of Democracy Data," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 987-1024, July.
    18. Małgorzata Kossowska & Piotr Kłodkowski & Anna Siewierska-Chmaj & Ana Guinote & Ursula Kessels & Manuel Moyano & Jesper Strömbäck, 2023. "Internet-based micro-identities as a driver of societal disintegration," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:5-:d:1304138. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.