Article published in:Re/constructing Politics Through Social & Online Media: Discourses, ideologies, and mediated political practices
Edited by Michał Krzyżanowski and Joshua A. Tucker
[Journal of Language and Politics 17:2] 2018
► pp. 195–221
Moral discourse in the Twitterverse
Effects of ideology and political sophistication on language use among U.S. citizens and members of Congress
We analyzed Twitter language to explore hypotheses derived from moral foundations theory, which suggests that liberals and conservatives prioritize different values. In Study 1, we captured 11 million tweets from nearly 25,000 U.S. residents and observed that liberals expressed fairness concerns more often than conservatives, whereas conservatives were more likely to express concerns about group loyalty, authority, and purity. Increasing political sophistication exacerbated ideological differences in authority and group loyalty. At low levels of sophistication, liberals used more harm language, but at high levels of sophistication conservatives referenced harm more often. In Study 2, we analyzed 59,000 tweets from 388 members of the U.S. Congress. Liberal legislators used more fairness- and harm-related words, whereas conservative legislators used more authority-related words. Unexpectedly, liberal legislators used more language pertaining to group loyalty and purity. Follow-up analyses suggest that liberals and conservatives in Congress use similar words to emphasize different policy priorities.
Keywords: political ideology, psycholinguistics, morality, basic values, social cognition
Published online: 24 November 2017
Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford
Albaugh, Quinn, Julie Sevenans, Stuart Soroka, and Peter John Loewen
2013 “The automated coding of policy agendas: A dictionary-based approach.” In 6th Annual Comparative Agendas Conference , Antwerp, Belgium.
Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak
Barberá, Pablo, John T. Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua Tucker, and Richard Bonneau
Barberá, Pablo, Ning Wang, Richard Bonneau, John T. Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua Tucker, and Sandra González-Bailón
Block, Jack, and Jeanne H. Block
Brady, William, Julian Wills, John T. Jost, Joshua Tucker, and Jay Van Bavel
Cichocka, Aleksandra, Michał Bilewicz, John T. Jost, Natasza Marrouch, and Marta Witkowska
Clifford, Scott, and Jennifer Jerit
Carney, Dana R., John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling, and Jeff Potter
Condor, Susan, Cristian Tileaga, and Michael Billig
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman
Durrheim, Kevin, and John Dixon
Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich
Evans, Geoffrey, Anthony Heath, and Mansur Lalljee
Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak
Federico, Christopher M., and Paul Goren
2009 “Motivated Social Cognition and Ideology: Is Attention to Elite Discourse a Prerequisite for Epistemically Motivated Political Affinities.” In Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification, ed. by John T. Jost, Aaron C. Kay, and Hulda Thorisdottir, 267–291. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Federico, Christopher M., Christopher R. Weber, Damla Ergun, and Corrie Hunt
Fowler, Roger, and Gunther Kress
Fraley, R. Chris, Brian N. Griffin, Jay Belsky, and Glenn I. Roisman
Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, Conor M. Dowling, and Shang E. Ha
Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek
Haidt, Jonathan, and Jesse Graham
Hirsh, Jacob B., Colin G. DeYoung, Xiaowen Xu, and Jordan B. Peterson
Homer-Dixon, Thomas, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Matto Mildenberger, Manjana Milkoreit, Steven J. Mock, Stephen Quilley, Tobias Schröder, and Paul Thagard
Jones, Kevin L., Sharareh Noorbaloochi, John T. Jost, Richard Bonneau, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua A. Tucker
Jost, J. T.
Jost, John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier
Jost, John T., Brian A. Nosek, and Samuel D. Gosling
Kandler, Christian, Wiebke Bleidorn, and Rainer Riemann
Kugler, Matthew, John T. Jost, and Sharareh Noorbaloochi
Leone, Luigi, Stefano Livi, and Antonio Chirumbolo
McAdams, Dan P., Michelle Albaugh, Emily Farber, Jennifer Daniels, Regina L. Logan, and Brad Olson
Milojev, Petar, Danny Osborne, Lara M. Greaves, Joseph Bulbulia, Marc S. Wilson, Caitlin L. Davies, James H. Liu, and Chris G. Sibley
Mondak, Jeffery J.
Neiman, Jayme L., Frank J. Gonzalez, Kevin Wilkinson, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Hibbing
Newman, Matthew L., Carla J. Groom, Lori D. Handelman, and James W. Pennebaker
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal
Prims, J. P., Zachary Melton, and Matt Motyl
2017. “Using Twitter to Understand Moral Differences Underlying Political Preferences in the 2016 US Presidential Primary.” In Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump ed. by M. Fitzduff
Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto
Sinn, Jeffrey S., and Matthew W. Hayes
Pennebaker, James W., and Lori D. Stone
Suhler, Christopher L., and Patricia Churchland
Tomkins, Silvan S.
Van Dijk, Teun A.
Wan, Ching, Kim‐Pong Tam, and Chi‐Yue Chiu
Webb, Eugene J., Donald Thomas Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Sechrest
Cited by other publications
Brady, William J., M. J. Crockett & Jay J. Van Bavel
Brown, Elizabeth K & Jasmine R Silver
Wang, Sze-Yuh Nina & Yoel Inbar
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.