Moral consensus and divergence in partisan language use

Polarization has increased substantially in political discourse, contributing to a widening partisan divide. In this paper, we analyzed large-scale, real-world language use in Reddit communities (294,476,146 comments) and in news outlets (6,749,781 articles) to uncover psychological dimensions along which partisan language is divided. Using word embedding models that captured semantic associations based on co-occurrences of words in vast textual corpora, we identified patterns of affective polarization present in natural political discourse. We then probed the semantic associations of words related to seven political topics (e.g., abortion, immigration) along the dimensions of morality (moral-to-immoral), threat (threatening-to-safe), and valence (pleasant-to-unpleasant). Across both Reddit communities and news outlets, we identified a small but systematic divergence in the moral associations of words between text sources with different partisan leanings. Moral associations of words were highly correlated between conservative and liberal text sources (average $\rho$ = 0.96), but the differences remained reliable to enable us to distinguish text sources along partisan lines with above 85% classification accuracy. These findings underscore that despite a shared moral understanding across the political spectrum, there are consistent differences that shape partisan language and potentially exacerbate political polarization. Our results, drawn from both informal interactions on social media and curated narratives in news outlets, indicate that these trends are widespread. Leveraging advanced computational techniques, this research offers a fresh perspective that complements traditional methods in political attitudes.