ArticleNature communications2024
Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward an integrated and globally equitable understanding of political polarization.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Political polarization in low- and middle-income countries.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Multifaceted polarization and information reliability in climate change discussions on social media platforms.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- TERT translocation to mitochondria: Exploring its role in mitochondrial homeostasis.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Only the Bluesky is the limit: ten tips for a trending #Skytorial.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Review
- Article
- Co-evolution of groups and opinions in an agent-based model.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Existing studies of political polarization are often limited to a single country and one form of polarization, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Here we investigate patterns of polarization online across nine countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, UK, USA), focusing on the structure of political interaction networks, the use of toxic language targeting out-groups, and how these factors relate to user engagement. First, we show that political interaction networks are structurally polarized on Twitter (currently X). Second, we reveal that out-group interactions, defined by the network, are more toxic than in-group interactions, indicative of affective polarization. Third, we show that out-group interactions receive lower engagement than in-group interactions. Finally, we identify a common ally-enemy structure in political interactions, show that political mentions are more toxic than apolitical mentions, and highlight that interactions between politically engaged accounts are limited and rarely reciprocated. These results hold across countries and represent a step towards a stronger cross-country understanding of polarization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.