Nonpolitical Tweets May Reveal Political Bias

Word selection among Twitter users who could be identified as likely members of one or the other political party showed specific usage patterns. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It can be rude to talk politics over dinner…explicitly at least. But subtle linguistic cues might reveal more than you think about your political views, whether at the dinner table—or on Twitter. "There's a lot of information in the details of our language." Matthew Purver, a computational linguist at Queen Mary University of London. "The little words we use, the way we join together our sentences, and the kind of interactional patterns, where we react to other people." 

Purver’s research team used Twitter as their communications forum, randomly selecting 28,000 users, half of whom clearly followed one political party’s Twitter feeds, for example, @GOP, but not the other, for a more or less even split among Republicans and Democrats. Then they analyzed the words in those users' timelines during a two-week period in June 2014. 

As you might expect, the tweets of users who followed Republican accounts were a lot more likely to contain words like "obamacare" and "benghazi," whereas "bridgegate" came up more among Democratic followers. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But the researchers also found that the left-leaners were much more likely to use words like sh#& and fu@$ than were the righties. And whereas Republican followers preferred plural pronouns like "we" or "us," Democratic followers used more singular pronouns, like "I" or "me." 

That pronoun use could reflect previous work on how people on the right and left forge their political views. "People on the right end of the political spectrum are more likely to be concerned with group conformity. Whereas people who tend to be on the left are perhaps more likely to see their morals or their values deriving from individualistic ideas, if you like." The study is in the journal PLoS ONE. [Karolina Sylwester and Matthew Purver: Twitter Language Use Reflects Psychological Differences between Democrats and Republicans]

Of course, just following a political account is not proof of political belief. But these findings suggest that algorithms may increasingly be able to read between the lines, detecting nuances in human communication that even we humans can't perceive. 

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe