Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data

  • Pablo Barberá (a1)
Abstract

Politicians and citizens increasingly engage in political conversations on social media outlets such as Twitter. In this article, I show that the structure of the social networks in which they are embedded can be a source of information about their ideological positions. Under the assumption that social networks are homophilic, I develop a Bayesian Spatial Following model that considers ideology as a latent variable, whose value can be inferred by examining which politics actors each user is following. This method allows us to estimate ideology for more actors than any existing alternative, at any point in time and across many polities. I apply this method to estimate ideal points for a large sample of both elite and mass public Twitter users in the United States and five European countries. The estimated positions of legislators and political parties replicate conventional measures of ideology. The method is also able to successfully classify individuals who state their political preferences publicly and a sample of users matched with their party registration records. To illustrate the potential contribution of these estimates, I examine the extent to which online behavior during the 2012 US presidential election campaign is clustered along ideological lines.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Bafumi, J., Gelman, A., Park, D. K., and Kaplan, N. 2005. Practical issues in implementing and understanding Bayesian ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 13(2): 171–87.
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C. 2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–42.
Bakker, Ryan, de Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Hooghe, Liesbet, Jolly, Seth, Marks, Gary, Polk, Jonathan, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco, and Anna Vachudova, Milada. 2012. Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics.
Barberá, P. 2013. streamR: Access to Twitter Streaming API via R. R package available on CRAN. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=streamR.
Barberá, P. 2014. Replication data for: Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Dataverse Network, http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26589.
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
Bonica, Adam. 2013a. Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections. http://data.stanford.edu/dime.
Bonica, Adam. 2013b. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 57(2): 294311.
Bonica, Adam. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58:367–86.
Boutet, A., Kim, H., Yoneki, E. 2012. What's in your Tweets? I know who you supported in the UK 2010 General Election. Proceedings of Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Palo Alto, California.
Bryant, J., and Miron, D. 2004. Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication 54(4): 662704.
Clinton, J., Jackman, S., and Rivers, D. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.
Conover, M., Gonçalves, B., Ratkiewicz, J., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. 2010. Predicting the political alignment of Twitter users. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Social Computing. Bethesda, Maryland.
Conover, Michael D., Gonçalves, Alessandro Flammini, Bruno, and Menczer, Filippo. 2012. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science 1(1): 119.
Conover, M. D., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Menlo Park, California.
Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. J. 1984. The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, H. 2012. The Internet's consequences for politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15:3552.
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J. 2008. Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11:563–88.
Garrett, R. K. 2009. Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication 59(4): 676–99.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. 2013. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Gelman, A., and Hill, J. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gelman, A., and Rubin, D. B. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4): 457–72.
Gonzalez, R., Cuevas, R., Cuevas, A., and Guerrero, C. 2011. Where are my followers? Understanding the locality effect in Twitter. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1105.3682.
Gruzd, A., and Roy, J. 2014. Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet 6:2845.
Hoff, Peter D., Raftery, Adrian E., and Handcock, Mark S. 2002. Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97(460): 1090–98.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Hahn, Kyu S. 2009. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59(1): 1939.
Jackman, Simon. 2001. Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: Identification, estimation, inference, and model checking. Political Analysis 9(3): 227–41.
Jackman, Simon. 2012. Estimates of Members’ Preferences, 112th U.S. House and Senate. Retrieved on August 3, 2012, from http://jackman.stanford.edu/blog /.
Jessee, S. A. 2009. Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review 103(1): 5981.
King, A., Orlando, F., and Sparks, D. B. 2011. Ideological extremity and primary success: A social network approach. Chicago, Illinois: Paper presented at the 2011 MPSA Conference.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., and Moon, S. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 591600.
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2012. The democratic deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 148–66.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. 1944. The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential election. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
Linden, W. J., and Hamlbleton, R. K. 1997. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
Lo, James, Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2013. A common left-right scale for voters and parties in Europe. Political Analysis. Forthcoming.
Londregan, John. 1999. Estimating legislators’ preferred points. Political Analysis 8(1): 3556.
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–44.
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and Teller, E. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics 21:1087–92.
Mutz, D. C. 2002. Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review 96(1): 111–26.
Oken Hodas, N., and Lerman, K. 2012. How visibility and divided attention constrain social contagion. College Park, Maryland: Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Social Computing.
Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 2007. Ideology and Congress. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Pub.
Shor, B., Berry, C., and McCarty, N. 2010. A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(3): 417–48.
Stan Development Team. 2012. Stan modeling language: User's guide and reference manual. Version 1.0.
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2008. Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior 30(3): 341–66.
Sunstein, C. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., and Watts, D. J. 2011. Who says what to whom on Twitter. Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Worldwide Web. ACM, 705–14.
Yardi, S., and Boyd, D. 2010. Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5): 316–27.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Barberá supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (694 KB)
694 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 21
Total number of PDF views: 1079 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 2582 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th January 2017 - 24th September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.