Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups.

Literature DB >> 28928150

Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups.

Levi Boxell¹, Matthew Gentzkow^2,3,4, Jesse M Shapiro^4,5.

Abstract

We combine eight previously proposed measures to construct an index of political polarization among US adults. We find that polarization has increased the most among the demographic groups least likely to use the Internet and social media. Our overall index and all but one of the individual measures show greater increases for those older than 65 than for those aged 18-39. A linear model estimated at the age-group level implies that the Internet explains a small share of the recent growth in polarization.

Keywords: Internet; polarization; politics; social media

Mesh：

Year: 2017 PMID： 28928150 PMCID： PMC5635884 DOI： 10.1073/pnas.1706588114

Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN： 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205

1 in total

1. More Polarized but More Independent: Political Party Identification and Ideological Self-Categorization Among U.S. Adults, College Students, and Late Adolescents, 1970-2015.

Authors: Jean M Twenge; Nathan Honeycutt; Radmila Prislin; Ryne A Sherman
Journal: Pers Soc Psychol Bull Date: 2016-09-07

1 in total

14 in total

1. Social sampling and expressed attitudes: Authenticity preference and social extremeness aversion lead to social norm effects and polarization.

Authors: Gordon D A Brown; Stephan Lewandowsky; Zhihong Huang
Journal: Psychol Rev Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 8.934

2. Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades.

Authors: Christopher K Tokita; Andrew M Guess; Corina E Tarnita
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 12.779

3. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.

Authors: Christopher A Bail; Lisa P Argyle; Taylor W Brown; John P Bumpus; Haohan Chen; M B Fallin Hunzaker; Jaemin Lee; Marcus Mann; Friedolin Merhout; Alexander Volfovsky
Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 11.205

4. A note on internet use and the 2016 U.S. presidential election outcome.

Authors: Levi Boxell; Matthew Gentzkow; Jesse M Shapiro
Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 3.240

5. Emergent dynamics of extremes in a population driven by common information sources and new social media algorithms.

Authors: N F Johnson; P Manrique; M Zheng; Z Cao; J Botero; S Huang; N Aden; C Song; J Leady; N Velasquez; E M Restrepo
Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 4.379

6. Moral grandstanding in public discourse: Status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict.

Authors: Joshua B Grubbs; Brandon Warmke; Justin Tosi; A Shanti James; W Keith Campbell
Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240

Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups.

1. More Polarized but More Independent: Political Party Identification and Ideological Self-Categorization Among U.S. Adults, College Students, and Late Adolescents, 1970-2015.

1. Social sampling and expressed attitudes: Authenticity preference and social extremeness aversion lead to social norm effects and polarization.

2. Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades.

3. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.

4. A note on internet use and the 2016 U.S. presidential election outcome.

5. Emergent dynamics of extremes in a population driven by common information sources and new social media algorithms.

6. Moral grandstanding in public discourse: Status-seeking motives as a potential explanatory mechanism in predicting conflict.

7. Onlife Extremism: Dynamic Integration of Digital and Physical Spaces in Radicalization.

8. The geographic embedding of online echo chambers: Evidence from the Brexit campaign.

9. Reframe policymaking dysfunction through bipartisan-inclusion leadership.

10. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media.