Group Threat, Political Extremity, and Collective Dynamics in Online Discussions

TL;DR

This study analyzes how perceived threats and political extremity influence online discussion networks, revealing that groups under threat or with extreme views tend to concentrate influence among a few commenters.

Contribution

It provides large-scale empirical evidence linking perceived threats and political extremity to network influence inequality in online political discussions.

Findings

Groups under threat have more influential commenters.

Politically extreme groups show higher influence inequality.

Real-world data supports theories of collective adaptation.

Abstract

Collectives adapt their network structure to the challenges they face. It has been hypothesized that collectives experiencing a real or imagined threat from an outgroup tend to consolidate behind a few influential group members, and that network structures in which a few members have a very strong influence are more likely in politically extreme groups. These hypotheses have not been tested in large-scale real-world settings. We reconstruct networks of tens of thousands of commenters participating in comment sections of high-profile U.S. political news websites spanning the political spectrum from left to right, including Mother Jones, The Atlantic, The Hill, and Breitbart. We investigate the relationship between different indices of inequality of influence in commenters' networks and perceived group threat associated with significant societal events, from elections and political rallies to mass shootings. Our findings support the hypotheses that groups facing a real or imagined outgroup threat and groups that are more politically extreme are more likely to include disproportionately influential commenters. These results provide an extensive real-world test of theoretical accounts of collective adaptation to outgroup threats.