IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-024-04304-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

American social media users have ideological differences of opinion about the War in Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • William G. Nomikos

    (University of California)

  • Dahjin Kim

    (Washington University in St. Louis.)

  • Gechun Lin

    (Washington University in St. Louis.)

Abstract

Though ideological differences have long been a ubiquitous feature of American politics, the rise of online news and social media has exacerbated divisions between groups. While existing research has documented how political preferences manifest online, relatively few studies have considered whether ideological divisions extend to discussions of foreign policy. We examine this question by analyzing nearly 2 million tweets about the war in Ukraine posted by Americans during the opening stages of the Russian invasion. We first categorize each tweet according to the user’s ideological leanings estimated by the network of political accounts they follow. Then, we apply a natural language processing model specifically designed for short texts to classify the tweets into clusters that we hand code into substantive topics. We find that the topic distributions of conservative, moderate, and liberal users are substantively and statistically different. We further find that conservatives are more likely to spread some form of misinformation and that liberals are more likely to express support for Ukraine. Our paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of our findings for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

Suggested Citation

  • William G. Nomikos & Dahjin Kim & Gechun Lin, 2025. "American social media users have ideological differences of opinion about the War in Ukraine," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-04304-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-04304-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-04304-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-04304-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    2. Erik Peterson, 2023. "Persuading partisans," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 480-481, April.
    3. Michaela Mattes & Jessica L. P. Weeks, 2019. "Hawks, Doves, and Peace: An Experimental Approach," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(1), pages 53-66, January.
    4. Carlson, Taylor N., 2019. "Through the Grapevine: Informational Consequences of Interpersonal Political Communication," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(2), pages 325-339, May.
    5. Steve Rathje & Jon Roozenbeek & Jay J. Bavel & Sander Linden, 2023. "Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(6), pages 892-903, June.
    6. Myrick, Rachel, 2021. "Do External Threats Unite or Divide? Security Crises, Rivalries, and Polarization in American Foreign Policy," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 921-958, April.
    7. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    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. Mazen Hassan & Sarah Mansour & Stefan Voigt & May Gadallah, 2022. "When Syria was in Egypt’s land: Egyptians cooperate with Syrians, but less with each other," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 337-362, June.
    2. Chonnakan Rittinon & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Suparit Suwanik & Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn, 2022. "Misunderstood Differences: Media, Perception, and Out-Group Animosity in Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, revised Sep 2024.
    3. Luca Henkel & Philipp Sprengholz & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2023. "The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 231-239, February.
    4. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Sgroi, Daniel & Yeo, Jonathan & Zhuo, Shi, 2021. "Ingroup Bias with Multiple Identities: The Case of Religion and Attitudes Towards Government Size," IZA Discussion Papers 14714, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2022. "News coverage and mass shootings in the US," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    7. Abel, Martin & Robbett, Andrea & Stone, Daniel F., 2024. "Partisan Discrimination in Hiring," IZA Discussion Papers 17540, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Michael Thaler, 2024. "The Fake News Effect: Experimentally Identifying Motivated Reasoning Using Trust in News," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-38, May.
    9. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2018. "Prosociality, Political Identity, and Redistribution of Earned Income: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 7256, CESifo.
    10. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al‐Nowaihi, 2021. "Identity and Redistribution: Theory and Evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 499-531, April.
    11. Andras Molnar & Shereen J. Chaudhry & George Loewenstein, 2020. ""It's Not about the Money. It's about Sending a Message!" Unpacking the Components of Revenge," CESifo Working Paper Series 8102, CESifo.
    12. Helbling, Marc & Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2020. "Social divides in the age of globalization," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(6), pages 1187-1210.
    13. Adam Lovett, 2023. "The ethics of asymmetric politics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-30, February.
    14. Voelkel, Jan G. & Stagnaro, Michael & Chu, James & Pink, Sophia Lerner & Mernyk, Joseph S. & Redekopp, Chrystal & Ghezae, Isaias & Cashman, Matthew & Adjodah, Dhaval & Allen, Levi, 2023. "Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes," OSF Preprints y79u5, Center for Open Science.
    15. Benjamin Barber & Daniel J. Blake, 2024. "My kind of people: Political polarization, ideology, and firm location," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 849-874, May.
    16. Vicky Chuqiao Yang & Tamara van der Does & Henrik Olsson, 2021. "Falling through the cracks: Modeling the formation of social category boundaries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2023. "Revealed deliberate preference change," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 357-367.
    18. Giuberti Coutinho, Lorena, 2021. "Political polarization and the impact of internet and social media use in Brazil," MERIT Working Papers 2021-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. repec:osf:socarx:hr5ba_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Jarrod T. Kelly & Eric Loepp, 2022. "Party over preference? Strategic primary voting in the age of outsiders," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 607-621, May.
    21. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-04304-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.