Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40991634›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Estimating affective polarization on a social network.

Marilena Hohmann, Michele Coscia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

2 authors.

Marilena HohmannCopenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-2435
Michele CosciaCS Department, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5984-5137

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns about polarization and hate speech on social media are widespread. Affective polarization, i.e., hostility among partisans, is crucial in this regard as it links political disagreements to hostile language online. However, only a few methods are available to measure how affectively polarized an online debate is, and the existing approaches do not investigate jointly two defining features of affective polarization: hostility and social distance. To address this methodological gap, we propose a network-based measure of affective polarization that combines both aspects - which allows them to be studied independently. We show that our measure accurately captures the relation between the level of disagreement and the hostility expressed towards others (affective component) and whom individuals choose to interact with or avoid (social distance component). Applying our measure to a large-scale Twitter data set on COVID-19, we find that affective polarization was low in February 2020 and increased to high levels as more users joined the Twitter discussion in the following months.

Indexed as

COVID-19PoliticsSocial MediaSocial NetworkingAffectHostilityHumansSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID40991634
PMCPMC12459850

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.