IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v9y2019i2p2158244019846211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Sterling
  • John T. Jost
  • Curtis D. Hardin

Abstract

What, in the 21st century, is our vision of the “good society,†and what are the obstacles to its realization? What is the ideal mix of equality and tradition, individual initiative and social welfare, economic prosperity and environmental responsibility, national unity and respect for diversity? Research suggests that liberals and conservatives differ considerably in the prioritization of these values, but nearly all of this research makes use of closed-ended responses to questionnaire items. To examine ideological similarities and dissimilarities in value expression and social representation when it comes to relatively open-ended communication in online social media networks, we used quantitative text-analytic methods to analyze more than 3.8 million messages sent by over 1 million Twitter users about what constitutes a good (vs. bad) society. Results revealed a fairly high degree of ideological divergence: Liberals were more likely to raise themes of social justice, global inequality, women’s rights, racism, criminal justice, health care, poverty, progress, social change, personal growth, and environmental sustainability, whereas conservatives were more likely to mention religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism, as well as individual authorities and news organizations. There were also some areas of convergence: Liberals, moderates, and conservatives were equally likely to prioritize economic prosperity, family, community, and the pursuit of health, happiness, and freedom.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Sterling & John T. Jost & Curtis D. Hardin, 2019. "Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:2:p:2158244019846211
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244019846211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019846211
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244019846211?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Shiller, 2012. "Finance and the Good Society," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9652.
    2. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Dustin Tingley & Christopher Lucas & Jetson Leder‐Luis & Shana Kushner Gadarian & Bethany Albertson & David G. Rand, 2014. "Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1064-1082, October.
    3. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Benoit Aubert & Jane Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Thierry Warin, 2021. "La détermination des agendas de discussion par les médias sociaux," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-12, CIRANO.
    3. John T. Jost & Daniela Goya-Tocchetto & Aaron C. Kay, 2023. "The Psychology of Left-Right Political Polarization; and an Experimental Intervention for Curbing Partisan Animosity and Support for Antidemocratic Violence," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 46-63, July.
    4. Alan C. Logan & Susan H. Berman & Brian M. Berman & Susan L. Prescott, 2020. "Project Earthrise: Inspiring Creativity, Kindness and Imagination in Planetary Health," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-23, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ferrara, Federico M. & Masciandaro, Donato & Moschella, Manuela & Romelli, Davide, 2022. "Political voice on monetary policy: Evidence from the parliamentary hearings of the European Central Bank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Camilla Salvatore & Silvia Biffignandi & Annamaria Bianchi, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Through Twitter: From Topic Model Analysis to Indexes Measuring Communication Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1217-1248, December.
    3. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "Assessing technology legitimacy with topic models and sentiment analysis – The case of wind power in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Ulrich Fritsche & Johannes Puckelwald, 2018. "Deciphering Professional Forecasters’ Stories - Analyzing a Corpus of Textual Predictions for the German Economy," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 201804, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    5. Seraphine F. Maerz & Carsten Q. Schneider, 2020. "Comparing public communication in democracies and autocracies: automated text analyses of speeches by heads of government," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 517-545, April.
    6. Peter Grajzl & Cindy Irby, 2019. "Reflections on study abroad: a computational linguistics approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 151-181, July.
    7. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    8. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    9. Edward Kerby & Alexander Moradi & Hanjo Odendaal, 2022. "African time travellers: what can we learn from 500 years of written accounts?," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _201, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    10. Caroline E Nowacki & Ashby Monk & Bertrand Decoster, 2021. "Who do sovereign wealth funds say they are? Using structural topic modeling to delineate variegated capitalism in their official reports," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(4), pages 828-857, June.
    11. Mourtgos, Scott M. & Adams, Ian T., 2019. "The rhetoric of de-policing: Evaluating open-ended survey responses from police officers with machine learning-based structural topic modeling," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Lundberg, Ian & Brand, Jennie E. & Jeon, Nanum, 2022. "Researcher reasoning meets computational capacity: Machine learning for social science," SocArXiv s5zc8, Center for Open Science.
    13. David Ardia & Keven Bluteau & Mohammad‐Abbas Meghani, 2024. "Thirty years of academic finance," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 1008-1042, July.
    14. Sanders, James & Lisi, Giulio & Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl, 2018. "Themes and topics in parliamentary oversight hearings: a new direction in textual data analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87624, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Federico M. Ferrara & Donato Masciandaro & Manuela Moschella & Davide Romelli, 2021. "Political Voice on Monetary Policy: Evidence from the Parliamentary Hearings of the European Central Bank," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 21159, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    16. Grajzl, Peter & Murrell, Peter, 2021. "A machine-learning history of English caselaw and legal ideas prior to the Industrial Revolution I: generating and interpreting the estimates," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    18. Parijat Chakrabarti & Margaret Frye, 2017. "A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: Integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(42), pages 1351-1382.
    19. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    20. Damani K. White-Lewis & KerryAnn O’Meara & Kiernan Mathews & Nicholas Havey, 2023. "Leaving the Institution or Leaving the Academy? Analyzing the Factors that Faculty Weigh in Actual Departure Decisions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(3), pages 473-494, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:2:p:2158244019846211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.