Ideological homophily or political interest: Factors affecting Twitter friendship network between politicians

References

• Alhabash, S., & Mengyan, M. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social Media+ Society, 3(1), 2056305117691544. doi:10.1177/2056305117733224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, A., Goel, S., Huber, G., Malhotra, N., & Watts, D. J. (2014). Political ideology and racial preferences in online dating. Sociological Science, 1, 28. doi:10.15195/v1.a3
   Google Scholar
• Ayan, P. (2010). Authoritarian party structures in Turkey: A comparison of the republican people’s party and the justice and development party. Turkish Studies, 11(2), 197–215. doi:10.1080/14683849.2010.483859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 209–213. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0228
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blais, A., & St-Vincent, S. L. (2011). Personality traits, political attitudes and the propensity to vote. European Journal of Political Research, 50(3), 395–417. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01935.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: J. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569. doi:10.1111/pops.12337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caetano, J. A., Lima, H. S., Santos, M. F., & Marques-Neto, H. T. (2018). Using sentiment analysis to define Twitter political users’ classes and their homophily during the 2016 American presidential election. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 9(1), 1–15. doi:10.1186/s13174-018-0089-0
   Google Scholar
• Çarkoğlu, A., & Ersin, K. (2007). Turkish democracy today: Elections, protest and stability in an Islamic society.  London and New York: IB Tauris.
   Google Scholar
• Chancellor, J., Layous, K., Margolis, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). Clustering by well-being in workplace social networks: Homophily and social contagion. Emotion, 17(8), 1166. doi:10.1037/emo0000311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, S. (2001). Online campaigning. Parliamentary Affairs, 54(4), 679–688. doi:10.1093/parlij/54.4.679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. doi:10.1111/jcom.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, K. S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. The Sociological Quarterly, 18(1), 62–82. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1977.tb02162.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, K. S., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1), 109–127. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.000545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems, 1695. http://igraph.org
   Google Scholar
• Del, V., Esteve, M., & Bravo, R. B. (2018). Echo chambers in parliamentary twitter networks: The Catalan case. International Journal of Communication, 12, 21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M. (1972). Exchange theory, part I: A psychological basis for social exchange. Sociological Theories in Progress, 2, 38–57.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, M. (2018). Policy-seeking and office-seeking: Categorizing parties based on coalition payoff allocation. Politics & Policy, 46(1), 4–31. doi:10.1111/polp.12242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 111–133. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, T., Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K., & Van’T Haar, G. (2013). Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters: The use of Twitter during the 2010 UK general election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 692–716. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Grant, J. B. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579–604. doi:10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruzd, A., & Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28–45. doi:10.1002/1944-2866.POI354
   Google Scholar
• Guo, L., Rohde, J. A., & Denis Wu, H. (2020). Who is responsible for Twitter’s echo chamber problem? Evidence from 2016 US election networks. Information, Communication & Society, 23(2), 234–251. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2018.1499793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halberstam, Y., & Knight, B. (2016). Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 73–88. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemsley, J., Stromer-Galley, J., Semaan, B., & Tanupabrungsun, S. (2018). Tweeting to the target: Candidates’ use of strategic messages and@ Mentions on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/19331681.2017.1338634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himelboim, I. (2017). Social network analysis (Social media). In J.Matthes (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0236.
   Google Scholar
• Homans, G. C. 1974. “Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
   Google Scholar
• Huang, H., Tang, J., Liu, L., Luo, J., & Xiaoming, F. (2015). Triadic closure pattern analysis and prediction in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 27(12), 3374–3389. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2015.2453956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. doi:10.1086/687533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, D., Handcock, M.S, Butts, C.T., Goodreau, S.M. & Morris, M. (2008). ergm: A Package to Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential-Family Models for Networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(3), 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2011). Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(1), 86–105. doi:10.1080/13572334.2011.545181
   Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2016). Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 72–91. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalaycoğlu, E. (2018). Two elections and a political regime in crisis: Turkish politics at the crossroads. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 18(1), 21–51. doi:10.1080/14683857.2017.1379148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney, M. W. (2019). rtweet: Collecting and analyzing Twitter data. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(42), 1829. doi:10.21105/joss.01829
   Google Scholar
• Koiranen, I., Koivula, A., Keipi, T., & Saarinen, A. (2019). Shared contexts, shared background, shared values–Homophily in Finnish parliament members’ social networks on Twitter. Telematics and Informatics, 36, 117–131. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolaczyk, E. D., & Gábor, C. (2014). Statistical analysis of network data with R (Vol. 65). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kumbaracbaşı, A. C. (2019). Analyzing party positions and electoral dynamics in Turkey. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies, 7(2), 382–405. doi:10.14782/ipsus.623236
   Google Scholar
• Laniado, D., Volkovich, Y., Kappler, K., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2016). Gender homophily in online dyadic and triadic relationships. EPJ Data Science, 5(1), 19. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0080-6
   Google Scholar
• Lou, T., Tang, J., Hopcroft, J., Fang, Z., & Ding, X. (2013). Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 7(2), 1–25. doi:10.1145/2499907.2499908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications (Vol. 35). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 335–362. doi:10.1017/S0007123408000173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, L. (2018). Policy, office and votes: Conservative MPs and the brexit referendum. Parliamentary Affairs, 71(1), 1–27. doi:10.1093/pa/gsx010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S., & Richter, M. (1993). Personality and attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(3), 313–321. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90222-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šćepanović, S., Mishkovski, I., Gonçalves, B., Nguyen, T. H., & Hui, P. (2017). Semantic homophily in online communication: Evidence from Twitter. Online Social Networks and Media, 2, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2017.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, E. J. (2005). Election campaigning online: German party websites in the 2002 national elections. European Journal of Communication, 20(3), 327–351. doi:10.1177/0267323105055261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinert, C., & Yordanova, N. (2016). ‘Alliance with the enemy’: Why the CDU and the greens formed their first coalition in a large German federal state. German Politics, 25(1), 54–72. doi:10.1080/09644008.2015.1060589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35(1), 50–74. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, K. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 565–598. doi:10.2307/2111461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trammell, K. D., Williams, A. P., Postelnicu, M., & Landreville, K. D. (2006). Evolution of online campaigning: Increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and blogs through text and technical features. Mass Communication & Society, 9(1), 21–44. doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0901_2
   Google Scholar
• Volkens, A., Burst, T., Krause, W., Lehmann, P., Matthieß, T., Merz, N., … Zehnter, L. (2020). The manifesto data collection (2020a). Manifesto project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2020a.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C.-H. (2016). Personality traits, political attitudes and vote choice: Evidence from the United States. Electoral Studies, 44, 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362–369. doi:10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041
   Google Scholar
• Zamal, A., Faiyaz, W. L., & Ruths, D. (2012). Homophily and latent attribute inference: Inferring latent attributes of Twitter users from neighbors. ICWSM, 270, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Zohlnhöfer, R., & Bandau, F. (2020). Policy or office? The determinants of programmatic change in West European political parties. In R. Careja, P. Emmenegger & N. Giger (Eds.), The European Social Model under Pressure (pp. 501–518). Wiesbaden: Springer.
   Google Scholar