Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands
Extensive research has been done on how social media have changed democratic society, politics, and public opinion. Social media are often regarded as a mirror of the public that, during political events, provides journalists and academics with a clear image of what position the public has on politi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta politica 2021-07, Vol.56 (3), p.436-455 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 455 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 436 |
container_title | Acta politica |
container_volume | 56 |
creator | van Klingeren, Marijn Trilling, Damian Möller, Judith |
description | Extensive research has been done on how social media have changed democratic society, politics, and public opinion. Social media are often regarded as a mirror of the public that, during political events, provides journalists and academics with a clear image of what position the public has on political issues and which sub-issues it uses to back it up. Yet, there is strong empirical evidence that active Twitter users differ in terms of background characteristics from the electorate, and that the most influential users possess specific traits. However, this does not necessarily mean that the opinions expressed on Twitter cannot reflect public opinion. This study aims to compare sub-issues used on Twitter to polled public opinion data in the context of the 2016 so-called Ukraine referendum
’
in the Netherlands. Our main findings indicate that there is a remarkable resemblance between the two domains in terms of sub-issues used and prominence of these sub-issues. Yet, this is mostly the case when not taking duplicates or retweets into account. Overall, the Twitter debate showed to be less nuanced than the polled public opinion data, as fewer sub-issues appeared. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1057/s41269-020-00160-w |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2542136940</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2542136940</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f9cef3f25931aa43c71086f558ad37a6b2d5cf5f126e0ebab649968b8ab37c073</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9Uc1u1DAQthBILIUX4DQSV0LHduIkJ4QqoEgVcGjPluOMuy4bO9jJrvaBeE-8bCU4IY088vj7Gflj7DXHdxyb9jLXXKi-QoEVIldYHZ6wDW9rXvGaq6dsg2VcqY7jc_Yi5wdEIVCqDfv1fR123kKcffAxQKnbg18WSu_hOh5gHxcCu43eEpgwgkn360Rhyf8gwcZp3h2h3LYwm9MoZPAB8pr2dITRLOYt0N6PFIqMS3GCZUsgyqZw9yMZHwgSOUoUxnU6MU_PX6mcaVdc80v2zJldpleP_YLdffp4e3Vd3Xz7_OXqw01lpZJL5XpLTjrR9JIbU0vbcuyUa5rOjLI1ahBjY13jyl8R0mAGVfe96obODLK12MoL9uasO6f4c6W86Ie4plAstWhqwaXqaywocUbZFHMui-s5-cmko-aoT3Hocxy6xKH_xKEPhSTPpFzA4Z7SX-n_sH4Dr7yQlw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2542136940</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>van Klingeren, Marijn ; Trilling, Damian ; Möller, Judith</creator><creatorcontrib>van Klingeren, Marijn ; Trilling, Damian ; Möller, Judith</creatorcontrib><description>Extensive research has been done on how social media have changed democratic society, politics, and public opinion. Social media are often regarded as a mirror of the public that, during political events, provides journalists and academics with a clear image of what position the public has on political issues and which sub-issues it uses to back it up. Yet, there is strong empirical evidence that active Twitter users differ in terms of background characteristics from the electorate, and that the most influential users possess specific traits. However, this does not necessarily mean that the opinions expressed on Twitter cannot reflect public opinion. This study aims to compare sub-issues used on Twitter to polled public opinion data in the context of the 2016 so-called Ukraine referendum
’
in the Netherlands. Our main findings indicate that there is a remarkable resemblance between the two domains in terms of sub-issues used and prominence of these sub-issues. Yet, this is mostly the case when not taking duplicates or retweets into account. Overall, the Twitter debate showed to be less nuanced than the polled public opinion data, as fewer sub-issues appeared.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-6810</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1741-1416</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1057/s41269-020-00160-w</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Palgrave Macmillan UK</publisher><subject>Academic staff ; Comparative Politics ; Data ; Democracy ; European Politics ; Journalists ; Mass media ; Original Article ; Political campaigns ; Political factors ; Political Science ; Political Science and International Relations ; Political Science and International Studies ; Politics ; Public opinion ; Referendums ; Social media ; Social networks ; Voters ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Acta politica, 2021-07, Vol.56 (3), p.436-455</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature Limited 2020</rights><rights>Springer Nature Limited 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f9cef3f25931aa43c71086f558ad37a6b2d5cf5f126e0ebab649968b8ab37c073</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f9cef3f25931aa43c71086f558ad37a6b2d5cf5f126e0ebab649968b8ab37c073</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s41269-020-00160-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41269-020-00160-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12845,27344,27924,27925,33774,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Klingeren, Marijn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trilling, Damian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Möller, Judith</creatorcontrib><title>Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands</title><title>Acta politica</title><addtitle>Acta Polit</addtitle><description>Extensive research has been done on how social media have changed democratic society, politics, and public opinion. Social media are often regarded as a mirror of the public that, during political events, provides journalists and academics with a clear image of what position the public has on political issues and which sub-issues it uses to back it up. Yet, there is strong empirical evidence that active Twitter users differ in terms of background characteristics from the electorate, and that the most influential users possess specific traits. However, this does not necessarily mean that the opinions expressed on Twitter cannot reflect public opinion. This study aims to compare sub-issues used on Twitter to polled public opinion data in the context of the 2016 so-called Ukraine referendum
’
in the Netherlands. Our main findings indicate that there is a remarkable resemblance between the two domains in terms of sub-issues used and prominence of these sub-issues. Yet, this is mostly the case when not taking duplicates or retweets into account. Overall, the Twitter debate showed to be less nuanced than the polled public opinion data, as fewer sub-issues appeared.</description><subject>Academic staff</subject><subject>Comparative Politics</subject><subject>Data</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>European Politics</subject><subject>Journalists</subject><subject>Mass media</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Political campaigns</subject><subject>Political factors</subject><subject>Political Science</subject><subject>Political Science and International Relations</subject><subject>Political Science and International Studies</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Referendums</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>0001-6810</issn><issn>1741-1416</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9Uc1u1DAQthBILIUX4DQSV0LHduIkJ4QqoEgVcGjPluOMuy4bO9jJrvaBeE-8bCU4IY088vj7Gflj7DXHdxyb9jLXXKi-QoEVIldYHZ6wDW9rXvGaq6dsg2VcqY7jc_Yi5wdEIVCqDfv1fR123kKcffAxQKnbg18WSu_hOh5gHxcCu43eEpgwgkn360Rhyf8gwcZp3h2h3LYwm9MoZPAB8pr2dITRLOYt0N6PFIqMS3GCZUsgyqZw9yMZHwgSOUoUxnU6MU_PX6mcaVdc80v2zJldpleP_YLdffp4e3Vd3Xz7_OXqw01lpZJL5XpLTjrR9JIbU0vbcuyUa5rOjLI1ahBjY13jyl8R0mAGVfe96obODLK12MoL9uasO6f4c6W86Ie4plAstWhqwaXqaywocUbZFHMui-s5-cmko-aoT3Hocxy6xKH_xKEPhSTPpFzA4Z7SX-n_sH4Dr7yQlw</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>van Klingeren, Marijn</creator><creator>Trilling, Damian</creator><creator>Möller, Judith</creator><general>Palgrave Macmillan UK</general><general>Palgrave Macmillan</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands</title><author>van Klingeren, Marijn ; Trilling, Damian ; Möller, Judith</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f9cef3f25931aa43c71086f558ad37a6b2d5cf5f126e0ebab649968b8ab37c073</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Academic staff</topic><topic>Comparative Politics</topic><topic>Data</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>European Politics</topic><topic>Journalists</topic><topic>Mass media</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Political campaigns</topic><topic>Political factors</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><topic>Political Science and International Relations</topic><topic>Political Science and International Studies</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Referendums</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Klingeren, Marijn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trilling, Damian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Möller, Judith</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Acta politica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Klingeren, Marijn</au><au>Trilling, Damian</au><au>Möller, Judith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands</atitle><jtitle>Acta politica</jtitle><stitle>Acta Polit</stitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>436</spage><epage>455</epage><pages>436-455</pages><issn>0001-6810</issn><eissn>1741-1416</eissn><abstract>Extensive research has been done on how social media have changed democratic society, politics, and public opinion. Social media are often regarded as a mirror of the public that, during political events, provides journalists and academics with a clear image of what position the public has on political issues and which sub-issues it uses to back it up. Yet, there is strong empirical evidence that active Twitter users differ in terms of background characteristics from the electorate, and that the most influential users possess specific traits. However, this does not necessarily mean that the opinions expressed on Twitter cannot reflect public opinion. This study aims to compare sub-issues used on Twitter to polled public opinion data in the context of the 2016 so-called Ukraine referendum
’
in the Netherlands. Our main findings indicate that there is a remarkable resemblance between the two domains in terms of sub-issues used and prominence of these sub-issues. Yet, this is mostly the case when not taking duplicates or retweets into account. Overall, the Twitter debate showed to be less nuanced than the polled public opinion data, as fewer sub-issues appeared.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Palgrave Macmillan UK</pub><doi>10.1057/s41269-020-00160-w</doi><tpages>20</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0001-6810 |
ispartof | Acta politica, 2021-07, Vol.56 (3), p.436-455 |
issn | 0001-6810 1741-1416 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2542136940 |
source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; SpringerNature Journals; Sociological Abstracts |
subjects | Academic staff Comparative Politics Data Democracy European Politics Journalists Mass media Original Article Political campaigns Political factors Political Science Political Science and International Relations Political Science and International Studies Politics Public opinion Referendums Social media Social networks Voters Voting |
title | Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T00%3A22%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public%20opinion%20on%20Twitter?%20How%20vote%20choice%20and%20arguments%20on%20Twitter%20comply%20with%20patterns%20in%20survey%20data,%20evidence%20from%20the%202016%20Ukraine%20referendum%20in%20the%20Netherlands&rft.jtitle=Acta%20politica&rft.au=van%20Klingeren,%20Marijn&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=436&rft.epage=455&rft.pages=436-455&rft.issn=0001-6810&rft.eissn=1741-1416&rft_id=info:doi/10.1057/s41269-020-00160-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2542136940%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2542136940&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |