How politicians leverage polarizing language — and how we can fix it

Issue 60: Evaluating the polarizing tweets, ads, and campaign materials of congressional candidates for divisive language; take our online quiz and find out if your own language is divisive.

This fall, the New York Times ran a front page article analyzing polarizing language from materials written by congressional leaders in the past 10 years, including 3.7 million tweets, Facebook ads, newsletters, and congressional speeches.

The NYT used a new Online Polarization Dictionary that Jay created with Almog Simchon and Billy Brady (which Jay shared with the NYT). Polarizing language refers to language that tends to emphasize differences and create division, often by framing an issue in terms of "us" versus "them".

The dictionary was based on a paper Jay published with Billy and several other colleagues. They found that every time people used a moral-emotional word (e.g., “hate”) in a Twitter message about political issues (e.g., climate change, same sex rights, gun control) it was 20% more likely to be shared by others. This type of language was linked to online virality.

However, the same language was also linked to online polarization. When people used this moral-emotional lan…