Polarization and group formation processes on social media networks have received ample academic attention, but few studies have looked into the discursive interactions on social media through which intergroup conflicts develop. In this comparative case study, we analyzed two social media conflicts between farmers and animal right advocates to understand how conflicts establish, escalate, and return dormant through issue and identity framing and the discursive use of emotions. The results show that the two groups used the same set of frames throughout the three phases. We identify this as a symmetric conflict framing repertoire. The groups both use a dominant moral frame (animal welfare is of absolute value), but express distinct views on policy solutions. This triggers a contestation of credibility (who knows best and who cares most for animals) in which the two groups use the same set of issue and identity frames to directly oppose each other. The binary opposition is initially established through issue framing but escalates into an identity conflict that involves group labeling and blaming. The discursive use of emotion reinforces this escalation in two ways. First, it reinforces a vicious cycle in the contestation of credibility: While emotions are implicitly used to frame oneself as caring and trustworthy, emotion is explicitly used to frame the other party as deceptive and irrational. Second, disputants use collective emotions as a response to the other group’s offensive actions (blaming) and as a justification of one’s own collective actions. We discuss how this conflict differs from previously studied conflicts to provide plausible explanations for these findings.

中文翻译：

---

在冲突中使用情绪来构建问题和身份：社交媒体上的农民运动

社交媒体网络上的两极分化和群体形成过程受到了广泛的学术关注，但很少有研究关注社交媒体上的群体间冲突发展的话语互动。在这个比较案例研究中，我们分析了农民和动物权利倡导者之间的两个社交媒体冲突，以了解冲突如何通过问题和身份框架以及情绪的话语使用来建立、升级和恢复休眠。结果表明，两组在三个阶段都使用了相同的框架集。我们认为这是一个对称的冲突框架曲目。这两个团体都使用主导的道德框架（动物福利具有绝对价值），但对政策解决方案表达了不同的看法。这引发了一场可信度之争（谁最了解动物，谁最关心动物），其中两组使用相同的问题和身份框架来直接反对对方。二元对立最初是通过问题框架建立的，但升级为涉及群体标签和指责的身份冲突。情绪的话语使用以两种方式强化了这种升级。首先，它强化了可信度争论的恶性循环：虽然情绪被隐含地用来形容自己关心和值得信赖，但情绪却被明确地用来形容对方具有欺骗性和非理性。其次，争议者使用集体情绪作为对另一组攻击性行为（指责）的回应，并作为自己集体行为的正当理由。