Echoes of Emotion
Influencers’ Communication Strategies and Comment Polarization in the US 2024 Presidential Election
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 17823254 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Xianquan Zeng (corresponding author), Jiarun Du, Jinghong Xu (0000-0003-4654-0603), Qiong Xu (0000-0002-0103-8081) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-30 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Media and Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2183-2439 • E-ISSN: 2183-2439 |
| Publisher | Cogitatio (PUBLISHER • PT) |
| DOI | 10.17645/mac.11794 |
| OpenAlex | W7159970525 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 56 |
This study examines strategic differences between Democratic and Republican YouTube influencers during the 2024 US presidential election and their association with comment-level political polarization. Drawing on digital opinion leadership theory, platform architecture perspectives, and visual framing research, we employ a mixed-methods design integrating framing analysis with latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling. The study analyzes 373 videos and 371,124 comments posted by 40 YouTube influencers (≥100,000 subscribers) from July 27th to November 30th, 2024. Findings reveal that Democratic creators adopted a moral-crisis framing strategy while Republicans emphasized an opportunity–explanation framing model, and that 56.4% of comment discourse centers on candidate personality rather than policy substance, exhibiting patterns consistent with affective polarization. The study develops and empirically calibrates the YouTube polarization risk assessment scale through ordinary least squares regression analysis ( R 2 = 0.224, p < 0.001), identifying political stance strength and humor/sarcasm as the strongest predictors of comment polarization, thereby providing an exploratory, empirically informed framework for assessing polarization risk in platform-based political communication
Democracy · General election · Influencer marketing · Politics · Presidential election · Presidential system · Humor Studies and Applications · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Affective Publics
The Revolution That Wasn’t
The Platform Society
Custodians of the Internet
False equivalencies
Finding scientific topics
The levels of visual framing
The Affordances of Social Media Platforms
Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization
Political Influencers on YouTube
The Cultural Logic of Photo-Based Meme Genres
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Framing European politics
Politics on YouTube
Understanding Political Polarization Based on User Activity
Political Influencers and Their Social Media Audiences during the 2021 Arizona Audit
Who Shares and Comments on News
Applying LDA Topic Modeling in Communication Research
News Frame Analysis
Topic modeling for frame analysis
How to Analyze Social Media? Assessing the Promise of Mixed-Methods Designs for Studying the Twitter Feeds of PMSCs
Revisiting opinion leadership in the digital realm
Polarized platforms? How partisanship shapes perceptions of “algorithmic news bias”
Identity concerns drive belief
Media prosumers in political communication
News Recommendations from Social Media Opinion Leaders
Explicating Affordances
Putting the Image Back Into the Frame
The Law of Group Polarization
Gender-Related Differences in Online Comment Sections
Integrative Framing Analysis
Image Bite Politics
Communicating Climate Change
(Un)Funny Against All Odds
(Mis)estimating Affective Polarization
Computational Identification of Media Frames
Fear and Loathing across Party Lines
Dynamics of Polarization
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Framing
Political Influencers on Social Media
Evaluating Sampling Methods for Content Analysis of Twitter Data
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |