The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress
Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
John T. Jost [verfasserIn] Joanna Sterling [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Social Influence ; 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 ; year:2020 ; number:2-4 ; pages:80-103 |
|---|
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ098191926 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ098191926 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240413210017.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240413s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ098191926 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a John T. Jost |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a language | |
| 650 | 4 | |a text analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a social media | |
| 650 | 4 | |a political ideology; u.s. congress | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Social Sciences | |
| 653 | 0 | |a H | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Joanna Sterling |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Social Influence |g 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:15 |g year:2020 |g number:2-4 |g pages:80-103 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 15 |j 2020 |e 2-4 |h 80-103 | ||
| author_variant |
j t j jtj j s js |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
johntjostjoannasterling:2020----:hlnugopltcielgclifrneicnrsinlomnctoosca |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 doi (DE-627)DOAJ098191926 (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John T. Jost verfasserin aut The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress Social Sciences H Joanna Sterling verfasserin aut In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 15 2020 2-4 80-103 |
| spelling |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 doi (DE-627)DOAJ098191926 (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John T. Jost verfasserin aut The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress Social Sciences H Joanna Sterling verfasserin aut In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 15 2020 2-4 80-103 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 doi (DE-627)DOAJ098191926 (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John T. Jost verfasserin aut The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress Social Sciences H Joanna Sterling verfasserin aut In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 15 2020 2-4 80-103 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 doi (DE-627)DOAJ098191926 (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John T. Jost verfasserin aut The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress Social Sciences H Joanna Sterling verfasserin aut In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 15 2020 2-4 80-103 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 doi (DE-627)DOAJ098191926 (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng John T. Jost verfasserin aut The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress Social Sciences H Joanna Sterling verfasserin aut In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 kostenfrei http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 15 2020 2-4 80-103 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 |
| sourceStr |
In Social Influence 15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103 volume:15 year:2020 number:2-4 pages:80-103 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress Social Sciences H |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Social Influence |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
John T. Jost @@aut@@ Joanna Sterling @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| id |
DOAJ098191926 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ098191926</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413210017.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240413s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ098191926</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John T. Jost</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">text analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">social media</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">political ideology; u.s. congress</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Social Sciences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">H</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joanna Sterling</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Social Influence</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2-4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:80-103</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">2-4</subfield><subfield code="h">80-103</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
John T. Jost |
| spellingShingle |
John T. Jost misc language misc text analysis misc social media misc political ideology; u.s. congress misc Social Sciences misc H The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress |
| authorStr |
John T. Jost |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress language text analysis social media political ideology; u.s. congress |
| topic |
misc language misc text analysis misc social media misc political ideology; u.s. congress misc Social Sciences misc H |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc language misc text analysis misc social media misc political ideology; u.s. congress misc Social Sciences misc H |
| topic_browse |
misc language misc text analysis misc social media misc political ideology; u.s. congress misc Social Sciences misc H |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Social Influence |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Social Influence |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| title |
The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ098191926 (DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 |
| title_full |
The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress |
| author_sort |
John T. Jost |
| journal |
Social Influence |
| journalStr |
Social Influence |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
80 |
| author_browse |
John T. Jost Joanna Sterling |
| container_volume |
15 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
John T. Jost |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of congress |
| title_auth |
The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress |
| abstract |
Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. |
| abstractGer |
Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
2-4 |
| title_short |
The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510 https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Joanna Sterling |
| author2Str |
Joanna Sterling |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:56:49.697Z |
| _version_ |
1803574008556290048 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ098191926</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413210017.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240413s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ098191926</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John T. Jost</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The language of politics: ideological differences in congressional communication on social media and the floor of Congress</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Theory and research in political psychology, most of which is based on self-report studies of ordinary citizens, suggests that liberals and conservatives differ in terms of personality traits, value priorities, cognitive styles, and motivational tendencies. These psychological characteristics may be studied unobtrusively through the use of text analysis, which is especially valuable when it comes to investigating the characteristics of political elites, who are otherwise extremely difficult to study, despite their importance for understanding ideological dynamics. In the present research program we used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software to analyze the language used by 279–388 members of the U.S. Congress on Twitter (n = 88,874 tweets), Facebook (n = 15,636 posts), and the floor of Congress (n = 6,159 speeches) over the same four-month period (February 9–May 28, 2014). Consistent with findings based on ordinary citizens, we observed that conservative legislators used more language pertaining to religion, power, threat, inhibition, risk and – on the floor of Congress – tradition and resistance to change. Conversely, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to affiliation, achievement, benevolence, emotion in general, ‘social’ concerns and – on the floor of Congress – universalism, stimulation, and hedonism. Implications for the study of political psycholinguistics focusing on ideological and contextual variability in communication patterns on various platforms are discussed, as are differences in language used by ordinary citizens and political elites.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">language</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">text analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">social media</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">political ideology; u.s. congress</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Social Sciences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">H</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joanna Sterling</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Social Influence</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2020), 2-4, Seite 80-103</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2-4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:80-103</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b9e721af509e47fab429ac1cabd9e621</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1871403</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4510</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1553-4529</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">2-4</subfield><subfield code="h">80-103</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3989944 |