Literature DB >> 36215484

How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting.

Petter Törnberg1,2.   

Abstract

Politics has in recent decades entered an era of intense polarization. Explanations have implicated digital media, with the so-called echo chamber remaining a dominant causal hypothesis despite growing challenge by empirical evidence. This paper suggests that this mounting evidence provides not only reason to reject the echo chamber hypothesis but also the foundation for an alternative causal mechanism. To propose such a mechanism, the paper draws on the literatures on affective polarization, digital media, and opinion dynamics. From the affective polarization literature, we follow the move from seeing polarization as diverging issue positions to rooted in sorting: an alignment of differences which is effectively dividing the electorate into two increasingly homogeneous megaparties. To explain the rise in sorting, the paper draws on opinion dynamics and digital media research to present a model which essentially turns the echo chamber on its head: it is not isolation from opposing views that drives polarization but precisely the fact that digital media bring us to interact outside our local bubble. When individuals interact locally, the outcome is a stable plural patchwork of cross-cutting conflicts. By encouraging nonlocal interaction, digital media drive an alignment of conflicts along partisan lines, thus effacing the counterbalancing effects of local heterogeneity. The result is polarization, even if individual interaction leads to convergence. The model thus suggests that digital media polarize through partisan sorting, creating a maelstrom in which more and more identities, beliefs, and cultural preferences become drawn into an all-encompassing societal division.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agent-based modeling; opinion dynamics; polarization; social cohesion; sorting

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36215484      PMCID: PMC9586282          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2207159119

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


  23 in total

1.  Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook.

Authors:  Eytan Bakshy; Solomon Messing; Lada A Adamic
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Interindividual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison's cure for "mischiefs of faction".

Authors:  Mari Kawakatsu; Yphtach Lelkes; Simon A Levin; Corina E Tarnita
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 12.779

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  The consequences of online partisan media.

Authors:  Andrew M Guess; Pablo Barberá; Simon Munzert; JungHwan Yang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a Dutch cultural controversy on Twitter.

Authors:  Anna Keuchenius; Petter Törnberg; Justus Uitermark
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters.

Authors:  Jacob R Brown; Ryan D Enos
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-03-08

Review 9.  Stewardship of global collective behavior.

Authors:  Joseph B Bak-Coleman; Mark Alfano; Wolfram Barfuss; Carl T Bergstrom; Miguel A Centeno; Iain D Couzin; Jonathan F Donges; Mirta Galesic; Andrew S Gersick; Jennifer Jacquet; Albert B Kao; Rachel E Moran; Pawel Romanczuk; Daniel I Rubenstein; Kaia J Tombak; Jay J Van Bavel; Elke U Weber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.