The Metaverse represents a collaborative virtual realm blending physical and digital realities, fostering limitless avenues for online interaction, discovery and innovation. As technological strides propel immersive virtual worlds to the forefront of social media platforms, scholarly interest in the Metaverse surges, prompting extensive discourse. Drawing from social identity theory, this article introduces a novel framework for analysing online polarisation within discussions on the Metaverse, specifically on X (Twitter). Leveraging a multifaceted approach that integrates clustering, social network analysis, and text mining, our study delves into both group and opinion polarisation dynamics surrounding the Metaverse. Our findings uncover distinct community divisions and network structures, shedding light on prevalent themes, such as ‘Non-Fungible Token (NFTs)’, ‘Virtual Products and Collections’, ‘Blockchain Technology’, ‘Gaming’, and ‘Financial Markets’ that resonate within the public discourse.
LuciaBVetterMAAdubofourIK. Behold the Metaverse: Facebook’s Meta imaginary and the circulation of elite discourse. New Media Soc. Epub ahead of print 10July2023. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231184249.
2.
Vidal-TomasD. The new crypto niche: NFTs, play-to-earn, and metaverse tokens. Finance Res Lett2022; 47: 102742.
3.
XiNChenJGamaF, et al. The challenges of entering the Metaverse: an experiment on the effect of extended reality on workload. Inf Syst Front2023; 25(2): 659–680.
4.
WangYSuZZhangN, et al. A survey on Metaverse: fundamentals, security, and privacy. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor2023; 25: 319–352.
5.
EglistonBCarterM. ‘The metaverse and how we’ll build it’: the political economy of Meta’s Reality Labs. New Media Soc2024; 26: 4336–4360.
6.
GursoyDMalodiaSDhirA. The Metaverse in the hospitality and tourism industry: an overview of current trends and future research directions. J Hosp Mark Manag2022; 31: 527–534.
7.
DincelliEYaylaA. Immersive virtual reality in the age of the Metaverse: a hybrid-narrative review based on the technology affordance perspective. J Strateg Inf Syst2022; 31(2): 101717.
8.
DionisioJDIIIWGGilbertR. 3D virtual worlds and the Metaverse: current status and future possibilities. ACM Comput Surv2013; 45(3): 1–38.
9.
ParkSMKimYG. A Metaverse: taxonomy, components, applications, and open challenges. IEEE Access2022; 10: 4209–4251.
10.
PamucarDDeveciMGokasarI, et al. A metaverse assessment model for sustainable transportation using ordinal priority approach and Aczel-Alsina norms. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 182: 121778.
11.
ChoiHKimS. A content service deployment plan for Metaverse Museum exhibitions – centering on the combination of beacons and HMDs. Int J Inf Manag2017; 37(1): 1519–1527.
12.
SunZZhuMShanX, et al. Augmented tactile-perception and haptic-feedback rings as human-machine interfaces aiming for immersive interactions. Nat Commun2022; 13(1): 5224.
13.
BelkRHumayunMBrouardM. Money, possessions, and ownership in the Metaverse: NFTs, cryptocurrencies, web3 and wild markets. J Bus Res2022; 153: 198–205.
14.
ShinD. The actualization of Meta affordances: conceptualizing affordance actualization in the Metaverse Games. Comput Hum Behav2022; 133: 107292.
15.
Vidal-TomasD. The illusion of the Metaverse and meta-economy. Int Rev Financ Anal2023; 86: 102560.
16.
HadiRMelumadSParkES. The Metaverse: a new digital frontier for consumer behavior. J Consum Psychol2024; 34: 142–166.
17.
BartaSGurreaRFlaviánC. Telepresence in live-stream shopping: an experimental study comparing Instagram and the Metaverse. Electron Mark2023; 33(1): 29.
18.
GhoshIAlfaro-CortésEGámezM, et al. Reflections of public perception of Russia-Ukraine conflict and Metaverse on the financial outlook of Metaverse coins: fresh evidence from Reddit sentiment analysis. Int Rev Financ Anal2024; 93: 103215.
19.
KimYKimB. How do the news media, academia, and the public view the metaverse? Evidence from South Korea. Technol Forecast Soc Change2024; 198: 122980.
20.
ZhangYXieYLiL, et al. How is public discussion as reflected in WeChat articles different from scholarly research in China? An empirical study of Metaverse. Scientometrics2024; 129(1): 473–495.
21.
MahmoudABFuxmanLAsaadY, et al. Exploring new realms or losing touch? Assessing public beliefs about tourism in the Metaverse–a big-data approach. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. Epub ahead of print 16July2024. DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2023-1515.
22.
BarberaPJostJTNaglerJ, et al. Tweeting from left to right. Psychol Sci2015; 26(10): 1531–1542.
23.
XingYWangXQiuC, et al. Research on opinion polarization by big data analytics capabilities in online social networks. Technol Soc2022; 68: 101902.
24.
IandoliLPrimarioSZolloG. The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: a systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Change2021; 170: 120924.
25.
XingYZhangJZTengG, et al. Voices in the digital storm: unraveling online polarization with ChatGPT. Technol Soc2024; 77: 102534.
26.
BailCAArgyleLPBrownTW, et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2018; 115(37): 9216–9221.
27.
Van BavelJJRathjeSHarrisE, et al. How social media shapes polarization. Trends Cogn Sci2021; 25(11): 913–916.
28.
WakefieldRLWakefieldK. The antecedents and consequences of intergroup affective polarization on social media. Inf Syst J2022; 33(3): 640–668.
29.
ModgilSSinghRKGuptaS, et al. A confirmation bias view on social media induced polarization during COVID-19. Inf Syst Front2021; 26: 417–441.
30.
Del VicarioMVivaldoGBessiA, et al. Echo chambers: emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Sci Rep2016; 6(1): 37825.
31.
MessingSWestwoodSJ. Selective exposure in the age of social media. Commun Res2012; 41(8): 1042–1063.
32.
ChenKJinYShaoA. Science factionalism: how group identity language affects public engagement with misinformation and debunking narratives on a popular Q&A platform in China. Soc Media Soc2022; 8(1): 205630512210770.
33.
ChoDKwonKH. The impacts of identity verification and disclosure of social cues on flaming in online user comments. Comput Hum Behav2015; 51: 363–372.
34.
WoonJ. Primaries and candidate polarization: behavioral theory and experimental evidence. Am Polit Sci Rev2018; 112(4): 826–843.
35.
KamienskiCde Camargo PenteadoCLGoyaD, et al. Measuring network polarization and political sectarianism during the 2020 pandemic. IEEE Trans Comput Social Syst2023; 10(3): 1356–1371.
36.
BeheshtiMKGopinathMAshouriS, et al. Does polarizing personality matter in influencer marketing? Evidence from Instagram. J Bus Res2023; 160: 113804.
37.
WilliamsHTPMcMurrayJRKurzT, et al. Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Glob Environ Change2015; 32: 126–138.
38.
RisiusMBlasiakKMWibisonoS, et al. The digital augmentation of extremism: reviewing and guiding online extremism research from a sociotechnical perspective. Inf Syst J2024; 34: 931–963.
39.
GuessAMMalhotraNPanJ, et al. Reshares on social media amplify political news but do not detectably affect beliefs or opinions. Science2023; 381(6656): 404–408.
40.
JacobDBanischS. Polarization in social media: a virtual worlds-based approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul2023; 26(3): 11.
41.
WangDQianY. Echo chamber effect in rumor rebuttal discussions about COVID-19 in China: social media content and network analysis study. J Med Internet Res2021; 23(3): e27009.
42.
BradyWJWillsJAJostJT, et al. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2017; 114(28): 7313–7318.
43.
CombsATierneyGGuayB, et al. Reducing political polarization in the United States with a mobile chat platform. Nat Hum Behav2023; 7: 1454–1461.
44.
HornseyM. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: a historical review. Soc Pers Psychol Compass2008; 2(1): 204–222.
45.
TajfelHTurnerJC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorschelS (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1979, pp. 33–47.
46.
AshforthBEMaelF. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manag Rev1989; 14(1): 20–39.
47.
WoodW. Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu Rev Psychol2000; 51(1): 539–570.
48.
Van KnippenbergD. Work motivation and performance: a social identity perspective. Appl Psychol2000; 49(3): 357–371.
49.
JohnsonTKromkaSM. Psychological, communicative, and relationship characteristics that relate to social media users’ willingness to denounce fake news. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2023; 26(7): 563–571.
50.
ChuSCLienCHCaoY. Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) on WeChat: examining the influence of sense of belonging, need for self-enhancement, and consumer engagement on Chinese travellers’ eWOM. Int J Advert2019; 38(1): 26–49.
51.
LaneDSMoxleyCMMcLeodC. The group roots of social media politics: social sorting predicts perceptions of and engagement in politics on social media. Commun Res2023; 50: 904–932.
52.
QianTYSeifriedC. Virtual interactions and sports viewing on social live streaming platforms: the role of co-creation experiences, platform involvement, and follow status. J Bus Res2023; 162: 113884.
53.
MudaMHamzahMI. Should I suggest this YouTube clip? The impact of UGC source credibility on eWOM and purchase intention. J Res Interact Mark2021; 15(3): 441–459.
54.
BurgersCBeukeboomCJSmithPAL, et al. How live Twitter commentaries by professional sports clubs can reveal intergroup dynamics. Comput Hum Behav2023; 139: 107528.
55.
WellsCFriedlandLA. Recognition crisis: coming to terms with identity, attention and political communication in the twenty-first century. Polit Commun2023; 40: 681–699.
56.
ShinJYangALiuW, et al. Mask-wearing as a partisan issue: social identity and communication of party norms on social media among political elites. Soc Media Soc2022; 8(1): 205630512210862.
57.
BrewerMBGardnerW. Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. J Pers Soc Psychol1996; 71(1): 83–93.
58.
WeiLGaoF. Social media, social integration and subjective well-being among new urban migrants in China. Telemat Informat2017; 34(3): 786–796.
59.
LiHZhangZMengF, et al. Is peer evaluation of consumer online reviews socially embedded? – An examination combining reviewer’s social network and social identity. Int J Hosp Manag2017; 67: 143–153.
60.
LiJSuMH. Real talk about fake news: identity language and disconnected networks of the US public’s ‘fake news’ discourse on Twitter. Soc Media Soc2020; 6(2): 205630512091684.
HasanMOrgunMASchwitterR. A survey on real-time event detection from the Twitter data stream. J Inform Sci2018; 44(4): 443–463.
63.
KaramiAShahVVaeziR, et al. Twitter speaks: a case of national disaster situational awareness. J Inform Sci2020; 46(3): 313–324.
64.
ClausetAMooreCNewmanME. Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature2008; 453(7191): 98–101.
65.
ClausetANewmanMEMooreC. Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E2004; 70(6): 066111.
66.
AhmedWVidal-AlaballJDowningJ, et al. Covid-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: social network analysis of Twitter data. J Med Internet Res2020; 22(5): e19458.
67.
AhmedWDasRVidal-AlaballJ, et al. Twitter’s role in combating the magnetic vaccine conspiracy theory: social network analysis of Tweets. J Med Internet Res2023; 25: e43497.
68.
ChenZPerlYHalperM, et al. Partitioning the UMLS semantic network. IEEE Trans Inform Technol Biomed2002; 6(2): 102–108.
69.
FengLChangEDillonT. A semantic network-based design methodology for XML documents. ACM Trans Inform Syst2002; 20(4): 390–421.
