POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN PAKISTAN AND OBSTINATE PARTISANSHIP

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2021(VI-I).11      10.31703/gpr.2021(VI-I).11      Published : Mar 1
Authored by : Ifra Iftikhar , Irem Sultana , Malik Adnan

11 Pages : 121-131

References

  • Ardevol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2020).
  • Bae, S. Y., Kwak, N., & Campbell, S. W. (2013). Who will cross the border? The transition of political discussion into the newly emerged venues. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2081-2089. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.006.
  • Bartle, J., & Bellucci, P. (2014). Introduction. In J. B. (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes (pp. 1- 25). New York: NY: Routledge/ECPR
  • Baumann, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Sokolov, I. M., & Starnini, M. (2020). Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Physical Review Letters, http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12325.
  • Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2016). The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers:Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks. Political Psychology, xx(xx). doi: 10.1111/pops.12337.
  • Butler, D., & Stokes, D. E. (1974). Electoral change in Britain. London: UK: Macmillan.
  • Cebrian, M., Rahwan, I., & Pentland, A. (2016). Beyond viral. Commun. ACM, 59(4):36-39.
  • Centola, D. (2013). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194.
  • Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702-34.
  • Chen, T., Shi, J., Yang, J., Cong, G., & Li, G. (2020). Modeling Public Opinion Polarization in Group Behavior by Integrating SIRS-Based Information Diffusion Proces. Complexity, vol. 2020, Article ID 4791527, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4791527.
  • Dilliplane, S. (2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 287-316. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr006.
  • Du, S., & Gregory, S. (2017). The echo chamber effect in Twitter: does community polarization increase? In G. S. In: Cherifi H., Complex Networks & Their Applications V. COMPLEX NETWORKS 2016. Studies in Computational Intelligence, (693). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50901- 3_30.
  • Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21:5, 729-745, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
  • Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 23-46. doi:10.1080/10584600701807836.
  • Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Attributes of interpersonal political discussion as antecedents of cognitive elaboration. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas,157(1) 65-84. doi:10.5477/cis/reis.157.65.
  • Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y. (2011). The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Scientific Reports, 1, 1-7.
  • Guess, A., Nyhan, B., Lyons, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Avoiding the Echo Chambers about Echo Chamber:Why selective exposure to like-minded political news is less prevalent than you think. Miami: Knight Foundation
  • Hargittai, E., Gallo, J., & Kane., M. (2008). Cross- ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice, 134(1- 2):67-86.
  • Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9221.2004.00357.x.
  • Jamieson, K., & Cappella, J. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media establishment. London: Oxford UP.
  • Kanji, M., & Archer, K. (2002). The Theories of Voting and Their Applicability in Canada. In J. Everitt, & B. O'Neill, Citizen Politics: Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour (pp. 160-183). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
  • Lemert, J. B. (1984). News context and the elimination of mobilizing information: An experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 243- 249. doi:10.1177/107769908406100201.
  • Mutz, D. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111- 126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540200426 4.
  • Perrella, A. (2010). Overview of Voter Behaviour Theories. In E. H. MacIvor, Election (pp. 221- 249). Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
  • Price, V. C. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? . Political Communication, 19(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246 506.
  • Romero, D., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms,political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, (pp. 695- 704).
  • Sîrbu, A., Loreto, V., Servedio, V. D., & Tria, F. (2013). Opinion dynamics with disagreement and modulated information. Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 151, no. 1-2, pp. 218- 237.
  • Smith, D. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology. Hove: UK: Psychology Press.
  • Sunstein, C. (2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 175-195.
  • Tsang, A., & Larson, K. (2016). The Echo Chamber: Strategic Voting and Homophily in Social Networks. In K. T. J. Thangarajah (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2016) (pp. 368- 375). Singapore: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems www.ifaamas.org
  • Vraga, E. K., Anderson, A. A., Kotcher, J. E., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). Issue-specific engagement: How Facebook contributes to opinion leadership and efficacy on energy and climate issues. . Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2): 200-218. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1034910.
  • Yardi, S. b. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 20:1-8.
  • Yoo, S. W., & Zúñiga, H. G. (2019). The role of heterogeneous political discussion and partisanship on the effects of incidental news exposure online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16, 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.15 61346.
  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, T., & Shi, J. (2020). Agent-based modeling approach for group polarization behavior considering conformity and network relationship strength[J]. Concurrency And Computation-Practice & Experience, 32(14), Article ID e5707.

References

  • Ardevol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2020).
  • Bae, S. Y., Kwak, N., & Campbell, S. W. (2013). Who will cross the border? The transition of political discussion into the newly emerged venues. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2081-2089. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.006.
  • Bartle, J., & Bellucci, P. (2014). Introduction. In J. B. (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes (pp. 1- 25). New York: NY: Routledge/ECPR
  • Baumann, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Sokolov, I. M., & Starnini, M. (2020). Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks. Physical Review Letters, http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.12325.
  • Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2016). The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers:Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks. Political Psychology, xx(xx). doi: 10.1111/pops.12337.
  • Butler, D., & Stokes, D. E. (1974). Electoral change in Britain. London: UK: Macmillan.
  • Cebrian, M., Rahwan, I., & Pentland, A. (2016). Beyond viral. Commun. ACM, 59(4):36-39.
  • Centola, D. (2013). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996), 1194.
  • Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702-34.
  • Chen, T., Shi, J., Yang, J., Cong, G., & Li, G. (2020). Modeling Public Opinion Polarization in Group Behavior by Integrating SIRS-Based Information Diffusion Proces. Complexity, vol. 2020, Article ID 4791527, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4791527.
  • Dilliplane, S. (2011). All the news you want to hear: The impact of partisan news exposure on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 287-316. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr006.
  • Du, S., & Gregory, S. (2017). The echo chamber effect in Twitter: does community polarization increase? In G. S. In: Cherifi H., Complex Networks & Their Applications V. COMPLEX NETWORKS 2016. Studies in Computational Intelligence, (693). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50901- 3_30.
  • Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21:5, 729-745, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656.
  • Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. (2008). Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to face groups. Political Communication, 25(1), 23-46. doi:10.1080/10584600701807836.
  • Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Attributes of interpersonal political discussion as antecedents of cognitive elaboration. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas,157(1) 65-84. doi:10.5477/cis/reis.157.65.
  • Gonzalez-Bailon, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y. (2011). The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Scientific Reports, 1, 1-7.
  • Guess, A., Nyhan, B., Lyons, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Avoiding the Echo Chambers about Echo Chamber:Why selective exposure to like-minded political news is less prevalent than you think. Miami: Knight Foundation
  • Hargittai, E., Gallo, J., & Kane., M. (2008). Cross- ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice, 134(1- 2):67-86.
  • Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9221.2004.00357.x.
  • Jamieson, K., & Cappella, J. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media establishment. London: Oxford UP.
  • Kanji, M., & Archer, K. (2002). The Theories of Voting and Their Applicability in Canada. In J. Everitt, & B. O'Neill, Citizen Politics: Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour (pp. 160-183). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
  • Lemert, J. B. (1984). News context and the elimination of mobilizing information: An experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 243- 249. doi:10.1177/107769908406100201.
  • Mutz, D. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111- 126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540200426 4.
  • Perrella, A. (2010). Overview of Voter Behaviour Theories. In E. H. MacIvor, Election (pp. 221- 249). Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
  • Price, V. C. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? . Political Communication, 19(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246 506.
  • Romero, D., Meeder, B., & Kleinberg, J. (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms,political hashtags, and complex contagion on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, (pp. 695- 704).
  • Sîrbu, A., Loreto, V., Servedio, V. D., & Tria, F. (2013). Opinion dynamics with disagreement and modulated information. Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 151, no. 1-2, pp. 218- 237.
  • Smith, D. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology. Hove: UK: Psychology Press.
  • Sunstein, C. (2002). The Law of Group Polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 175-195.
  • Tsang, A., & Larson, K. (2016). The Echo Chamber: Strategic Voting and Homophily in Social Networks. In K. T. J. Thangarajah (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2016) (pp. 368- 375). Singapore: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems www.ifaamas.org
  • Vraga, E. K., Anderson, A. A., Kotcher, J. E., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). Issue-specific engagement: How Facebook contributes to opinion leadership and efficacy on energy and climate issues. . Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2): 200-218. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1034910.
  • Yardi, S. b. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 20:1-8.
  • Yoo, S. W., & Zúñiga, H. G. (2019). The role of heterogeneous political discussion and partisanship on the effects of incidental news exposure online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16, 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.15 61346.
  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, T., & Shi, J. (2020). Agent-based modeling approach for group polarization behavior considering conformity and network relationship strength[J]. Concurrency And Computation-Practice & Experience, 32(14), Article ID e5707.

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Iftikhar, I., Sultana, I., & Adnan, M. (2021). Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship. Global Political Review, VI(I), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2021(VI-I).11

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Iftikhar, Ifra, Irem Sultana, and Malik Adnan. 2021. "Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship." Global Political Review, VI (I): 121-131 doi: 10.31703/gpr.2021(VI-I).11

HARVARD

    HARVARD : IFTIKHAR, I., SULTANA, I. & ADNAN, M. 2021. Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship. Global Political Review, VI, 121-131.

MHRA

    MHRA : Iftikhar, Ifra, Irem Sultana, and Malik Adnan. 2021. "Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship." Global Political Review, VI: 121-131

MLA

    MLA : Iftikhar, Ifra, Irem Sultana, and Malik Adnan. "Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship." Global Political Review, VI.I (2021): 121-131 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Iftikhar, Ifra, Sultana, Irem, and Adnan, Malik (2021), "Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship", Global Political Review, VI (I), 121-131

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Iftikhar, Ifra, Irem Sultana, and Malik Adnan. "Political Discussions on Social Media in Pakistan and Obstinate Partisanship." Global Political Review VI, no. I (2021): 121-131. https://doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2021(VI-I).11