Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40697192›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

Liberals and conservatives share information differently on social media.

Ho-Chun Herbert Chang, James N Druckman, Emilio Ferrara, Robb Willer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ho-Chun Herbert ChangProgram in Quantitative Social Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0056-2527
James N DruckmanDepartment of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-6790
Emilio FerraraThomas Lord Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-2831
Robb WillerDepartment of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3404-6472

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media provides citizens with direct access to information shared by politicians. Citizens, in turn, play a critical role in diffusing such content. Do conservative and liberal citizens differ in their decisions about which representatives' social media content to share? We analyze more than 13 million users' sharing of 1,293,753 messages by US members of Congress on Twitter from 2009 to 2019, leveraging estimates of users' political ideology from over 3.5 billion prior retweets. We find that liberals retweeted statements covering a broader range of issues than conservatives. Liberals also shared statements with content rated as relatively more toxic by a standard classifier. Given well-established tendencies toward political homophily among social media users, our results suggest that, compared to conservatives, liberals will be exposed to a more diverse set of issues and more toxic content originating from elected representatives. We conclude with a discussion of several possible explanations for these patterns.

Indexed as

information diffusionpartisan asymmetriessocial mediasupply and demandtoxicity

Identifiers

PMID40697192
PMCPMC12280873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.