Political isolation in America
Abstract
This study documents historical trends of size and political diversity in Americans’ discussion networks, which are often seen as important barometers of social and political health. Contrasting findings from data drawn out of a nationally representative survey experiment of 1,055 Americans during the contentious 2016 U.S. presidential election to data arising from 11 national data sets covering nearly three decades, we find that Americans’ core networks are significantly smaller and more politically homogeneous than at any other period. Several methodological artifacts seem unlikely to account for the effect. We show that in this period, more than before, “important matters” were often framed as political matters, and that this association probably accounts for the smaller networks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Over the past three decades, Americans' personal networks have become smaller and more homogeneous in terms of political preferences, apparently because 'important matters' are increasingly framed as ideologically meaningful.
“over the past three decades, Americans’ personal networks have become smaller and more homogeneous in terms of political preferences, apparently because ‘important matters’ are increasingly framed as ideologically meaningful204.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [204]
Whether offline or online, people tend to share information and discuss politics with like-minded others, but they are seldom completely cut off from disagreement.
“Whether offline202–204 or online205–207, people tend to share information and discuss politics with like-minded others, but they are seldom completely cut off from disagreement208.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [204]
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lee, B., & Bearman, P.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bearman, Peter
- Venue
- Network Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-02-26
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 333-355
- ISSN
- 2050-1242 (ISSN-L)
- 2050-1250
- OpenAlex
- W3007914569
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 3.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Network Science (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- political isolation, social networks, political diversity, network size, 2016 US presidential election, political polarization, framing effects, social health, historical trends
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review