Literature DB >> 34876506

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes.

Robert Axelrod1, Joshua J Daymude2, Stephanie Forrest2,3,4.   

Abstract

Extreme polarization can undermine democracy by making compromise impossible and transforming politics into a zero-sum game. "Ideological polarization"-the extent to which political views are widely dispersed-is already strong among elites, but less so among the general public [N. McCarty, Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know, 2019, pp. 50-68]. Strong mutual distrust and hostility between Democrats and Republicans in the United States, combined with the elites' already strong ideological polarization, could lead to increasing ideological polarization among the public. The paper addresses two questions: 1) Is there a level of ideological polarization above which polarization feeds upon itself to become a runaway process? 2) If so, what policy interventions could prevent such dangerous positive feedback loops? To explore these questions, we present an agent-based model of ideological polarization that differentiates between the tendency for two actors to interact ("exposure") and how they respond when interactions occur, positing that interaction between similar actors reduces their difference, while interaction between dissimilar actors increases their difference. Our analysis explores the effects on polarization of different levels of tolerance to other views, responsiveness to other views, exposure to dissimilar actors, multiple ideological dimensions, economic self-interest, and external shocks. The results suggest strategies for preventing, or at least slowing, the development of extreme polarization.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agent-based models; democracy; ideology; opinion change; political polarization

Year:  2021        PMID: 34876506      PMCID: PMC8685667          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2102139118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   12.779


  7 in total

Review 1.  A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

Authors:  Thomas F Pettigrew; Linda R Tropp
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2006-05

2.  Repulsion in controversial debate drives public opinion into fifty-fifty stalemate.

Authors:  Sebastian M Krause; Fritz Weyhausen-Brinkmann; Stefan Bornholdt
Journal:  Phys Rev E       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.529

3.  Link recommendation algorithms and dynamics of polarization in online social networks.

Authors:  Fernando P Santos; Yphtach Lelkes; Simon A Levin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

4.  Polarization and tipping points.

Authors:  Michael W Macy; Manqing Ma; Daniel R Tabin; Jianxi Gao; Boleslaw K Szymanski
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  Differentiation without distancing. explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence.

Authors:  Michael Mäs; Andreas Flache
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  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

7.  Discrepancy and Disliking Do Not Induce Negative Opinion Shifts.

Authors:  Károly Takács; Andreas Flache; Michael Mäs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total
  11 in total

1.  A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy.

Authors:  Samuel S-H Wang; Jonathan Cervas; Bernard Grofman; Keena Lipsitz
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

2.  Link recommendation algorithms and dynamics of polarization in online social networks.

Authors:  Fernando P Santos; Yphtach Lelkes; Simon A Levin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

3.  Polarization, diversity, and democratic robustness.

Authors:  Jenna Bednar
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

4.  The emergence and perils of polarization.

Authors:  Delia Baldassarri; Scott E Page
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  Segregation and clustering of preferences erode socially beneficial coordination.

Authors:  Vítor V Vasconcelos; Sara M Constantino; Astrid Dannenberg; Marcel Lumkowsky; Elke Weber; Simon Levin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  The dynamics of political polarization.

Authors:  Simon A Levin; Helen V Milner; Charles Perrings
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

7.  Inequality, identity, and partisanship: How redistribution can stem the tide of mass polarization.

Authors:  Alexander J Stewart; Joshua B Plotkin; Nolan McCarty
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

8.  The complexity of polarization.

Authors:  Scott de Marchi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 12.779

9.  Reply to de Marchi: Modeling polarization of political attitudes.

Authors:  Robert Axelrod; Stephanie Forrest; Joshua J Daymude
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 12.779

10.  Empirical social triad statistics can be explained with dyadic homophylic interactions.

Authors:  Tuan Minh Pham; Jan Korbel; Rudolf Hanel; Stefan Thurner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.