CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

The effects of disagreement and unfriending on political polarization: a moderated-mediation model of cross-cutting discussion on affective polarization via unfriending contingent upon exposure to incivility

Open access
Lin, Han, Wang, Yi, Lee, Janggeun, Kim, Yonghwan·2023·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
DOI 10.1093/jcmc/zmad022
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cross-cutting discussion is the foundation of deliberative democracy. However, previous research has reported inconsistent results regarding the effects of exposure to dissimilar perspectives on political polarization. This study aims to extend the literature by exploring how cross-cutting discussion influences affective polarization through unfriending and how this indirect effect is contingent upon exposure to incivility. The study analyzes panel data from a two-wave online survey conducted in South Korea (N = 890). The results show a significantly positive indirect effect of unfriending, suggesting that cross-cutting discussion further reinforces affective polarization via unfriending. Furthermore, the study identifies the boundary conditions for this mediating mechanism, showing that the mediated relationship of cross-cutting discussion on affective polarization via unfriending is stronger for those who are more exposed to incivility on social media.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jcmc/zmad022

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Aljawarneh, N. M. S., & Atan, T. (2018). Linking tolerance to workplace incivility, service innovative, knowledge hiding, and job search behav- ior: The mediating role of employee cynicism. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 11(4), 298-320. 10.1111/ncmr.12136 · DOI
  2. Amsalem, E., Merkley, E., & Loewen, P. J. (2021). Does talking to the other side reduce inter-party hostility? Evidence from three studies. Political Communication, 39(1), 61-78. 10.1080/10584609.2021.1955056 · DOI
  3. Anderson, A. A., Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2018). Toxic talk: How online incivility can undermine per- ceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(1), 156-168. 10.1093/ijpor/edw022 · DOI
  4. Barnidge, M., Kim, B., Sherrill, L. A., Luknar, Z., & Zhang, J. (2019). Perceived exposure to and avoidance of hate speech in various com- munication settings. Telematics and Informatics, 44, 101263. 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101263 · DOI
  5. Barnidge, M., Peacock, C., Kim, B., Kim, Y., & Xenos, M. A. (2022). Networks and selective avoidance: How social media networks influence unfriending and other avoidance behaviors. Social Science Computer Review. Advance online publication. 10.1177/0894439321106962 · DOI
  6. Blitvich, P. G.-C. (2010). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization. In R. Taiwo (Ed.), Handbook of research on dis- course behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction (Vol. II, pp. 540-563). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-61520-773-2. · DOI
  7. ch035 · DOI
  8. Bode, L. (2016). Pruning the news feed: Unfriending and unfollowing political content on social media. Research & Politics, 3(3), 2053168016661873. 10.1177/2053168016661873 · DOI
  9. Borah, P. (2014). Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blo- gosphere: Consequences and psychological mechanisms. In A. M. G. Solo (Ed.), Handbook of research on political activism in the information age (pp. 407-424). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-4666-6066-3. · DOI
  10. ch024 · DOI
  11. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization (Working Paper No. 26669). National Bureau of Economic Research. 10.3386/w26669 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public delibera- tion, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 315-344. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 · DOI
  13. Chan, C. H., & Fu, K. W. (2017). The relationship between cyberbalka- nization and opinion polarization: Time-series analysis on Facebook pages and opinion polls during the Hong Kong Occupy Movement and the associated debate on political reform. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(5), 266-283. 10.111 1/jcc4.12192 · DOI
  14. Chan, C., Chow, C. S., & Fu, K. (2019). Echoslamming: How incivility inter- acts with cyberbalkanization on the social media in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Communication, 29(4), 307-327. 10.1080/01292986. 2019.1624792 · DOI
  15. Chen, H. T., Kim, Y., & Chan, M. (2022). Just a Glance, or More? Pathways from Counter-Attitudinal Incidental Exposure to Attitude (De)Polarization Through Response Behaviors and Cognitive Elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83-110. 10.1093/ joc/jqab046 · DOI
  16. Chiaburu, D. S., Peng, A. C., Oh, I. S., Banks, G. C., & Lomeli, L. C. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(2), 181-197. 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.007 · DOI
  17. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. 10.1111/jcom.12104. 10.1093/joc/jqab046 · DOI
  18. Dahlberg, L. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x · DOI
  19. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
  20. Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal informa- tion exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309-332. 10.1111/hcre.12028 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gervais, B. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reac- tions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 167-185. 10.1080/19331681.2014.997416 · DOI
  22. Gervais, B. T. (2017). More than mimicry? The role of anger in uncivil reactions to elite political incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 384-405. 10.1093/ijpor/edw010 · DOI
  23. Gill, H. (2022). Testing the effect of cross-cutting exposure to cable TV news on affective polarization: Evidence from the 2020 US presiden- tial election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 66(2), 320-339. 10.1080/08838151.2022.2087653 · DOI
  24. Goyanes, M., Borah, P., & Gil de Zu ´ñiga, H. (2021). Social media filter- ing and democracy: Effects of social media news use and uncivil po- litical discussions on social media unfriending. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106759.10.1016/j.chb.2021.106759 · DOI
  25. Green, J., Edgerton, J., Naftel, D., Shoub, K., & Cranmer, S. J. (2020). Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6(28), eabc2717. 10.1126/sciadv.abc2717 · DOI
  26. Groshek, J., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candi- dates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1389-1407. 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1329334 · DOI
  27. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1998). Democracy and disagree- ment. Harvard University Press.
  28. Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x · DOI
  29. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi- tional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
  30. Heatherly, K. A., Lu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2017). Filtering out the other side? Cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1271-1289. 10.1177/14614448 16634677 · DOI
  31. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, am- bivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heteroge- neous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95. 10 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x · DOI · Paper page
  33. Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D., & Beam, M. A. (2019). Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Communication Monographs, 86(3), 357-376. 10.1080/036 37751.2019.1575255 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Huh, C. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621-633. 10.1080/08838151.2014.966365 · DOI
  35. Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2018). Influence of discussion incivility on deliberation: An examination of the mediating role of moral in- dignation. Communication Research, 45(2), 213-240. 10.1177/00 93650215616861 · DOI
  36. John, N. A., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). "I don't like you any more": Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel-Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 953-974. 10.1111/jcom.12188 · DOI
  37. John, N. A., & Gal, N. (2018). "He's got his own sea": Political Facebook unfriending in the personal public sphere. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2971-2988.
  38. John, N., & Agbarya, A. (2021). Punching up or turning away? Palestinians unfriending Jewish Israelis on Facebook. New Media & Society, 23(5), 1063-1079. 10.1177/146144482090825 · DOI
  39. Kingzette, J., Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2021). How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(2), 663-677. 10.1093/poq/nfab029 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Kim, B. (2020). Effects of social grooming on incivility in COVID-19. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(8), 519-525. 10.1089/cyber.2020.0201 · DOI
  41. Kim, B., Barnidge, M., & Kim, Y. (2020). The communicative processes of attempted political persuasion in social media environments: The mediating roles of cognitive elaboration and political orientations. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 813-828. 10.1108/IT P-03-2018-0157 · DOI
  42. Kim, B., Wang, Y., Lee, J., & Kim, Y. (2022). Unfriending effects: Testing contrasting indirect-effects relationships between exposure to hate speech on political talk via social media unfriending. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, 107414.10.1016/j.chb. 2022.107414 · DOI
  43. Kim, D. H., Jones-Jang, S. M., & Kenski, K. (2021). Unfriending and muting during elections: The antecedents and consequences of selec- tive avoidance on social media. Mass Communication and Society, 25, 161-184. 10.1080/15205436.2021.1942494 · DOI
  44. Kim, J. W., Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2021). The distorting prism of social media: How self-selection and exposure to incivility fuel online comment toxicity. Journal of Communication, 71(6), 922-946. 10.1093/joc/jqab034 · DOI
  45. Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 971-977. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.001 · DOI
  46. Kim, Y. (2015). Does disagreement mitigate polarization? How selective exposure and disagreement affect political polarization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 915-937. 10.1177/1077699015596328 · DOI
  47. Kim, Y., & Chen, H.-T. (2016). Social media and online political partici- pation: The mediating role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 320-330. 10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.008 · DOI
  48. Kim, Y., & Kim, Y. (2019). Incivility on Facebook and political polari- zation: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 219-227. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.022 · DOI
  49. Kim, Y., & Kim, B. (2022). Effects of young adults' smartphone use for social media on communication network heterogeneity, social capi- tal and civic engagement. Online Information Review, 46(3), 616-638. 10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0332 · DOI
  50. Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687-704. 10.1111/ajps.12087 Korea Press Foundation. (2021, December 31). Social media users in Korea. https://www.kpf.or.kr/front/research/consumerDetail.do? seq=592324 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702-722. 10.1111/jcom.12077 · DOI
  52. Lee, J. K., & Kim, Y. (2014). Political knowledge gaps among news con- sumers with different news media repertoires across multiple plat- forms. International Journal of Communication, 8, 597-617.
  53. Lin, H., & Kim, Y. (2023). Learning from disagreement on social media: The mediating role of like-minded and cross-cutting discussion and the moderating role of fact-checking. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107558. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107558 · DOI
  54. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intel- ligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
  55. Masullo Chen, G., Muddiman, A., Wilner, T., Pariser, E., & Stroud, N. J. (2019). We should not get rid of incivility online. Social Media þ Society, 5(3), 2056305119862641. 10.1177/2056305119862641 · DOI
  56. Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111-126. 10.1017/S0003055402004264 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus partici- patory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Neubaum, G., Cargnino, M., & Maleszka, J. (2021). How Facebook users experience political disagreements and make decisions about the political homogenization of their online network. International Journal of Communication, 15(0), 20.
  59. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Noel, H., & Nyhan, B. (2011). The "unfriending" problem: The conse- quences of homophily in friendship retention for causal estimates of social influence. Social Networks, 33(3), 211-218. 10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.003 · DOI
  61. Sasahara, K., Chen, W., Peng, H., Ciampaglia, G. L., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2021). Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers. Journal of Computational Social Science, 4(1), 381-402. 10.1007/s42001-020-00084-7 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Schwarz, O., & Shani, G. (2016). Culture in mediated interaction: Political defriending on Facebook and the limits of networked indi- vidualism. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 4(3), 385-421. 10.1057/s41290-016-0006-6 · DOI
  63. Sibona, C. (2014). Unfriending on Facebook: Context collapse and unfriending behaviors. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI (pp. 1676-1685). 10.1109/H ICSS.2014.214 · DOI
  64. Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., & Lin, J.-H. T. (2018). What predicts selective avoidance on social media? A study of political unfriending in Hong Kong and Taiwan. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(8), 1097-1115. 10.1177/0002764218764251 · DOI
  65. Song, H. (2015). Uncovering the structural underpinnings of political discussion networks: Evidence from an exponential random graph model. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 146-169. 10.111 1/jcom.12140 · DOI
  66. Strickler, R. (2018). Deliberate with the enemy? Polarization, social identity, and attitudes toward disagreement. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 3-18. 10.1177/1065912917721371 · DOI
  67. Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. 10.1111/j.14 60-2466.2010.01497.x · DOI · Paper page
  68. Su, L. Y.-F., Xenos, M. A., Rose, K. M., Wirz, C., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2018). Uncivil and personal? Comparing patterns of incivility in comments on the Facebook pages of news outlets. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3678-3699. 10.1177/14614 44818757205 · DOI
  69. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evalua- tion of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · DOI · Paper page
  70. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for map- ping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309-328. 10.1111/comt.12087 · DOI
  71. Wojcieszak, M. E., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), 40-56. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x · DOI
  72. Wojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31(3), 315-339. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00753.x · DOI
  73. Yang, J., Barnidge, M., & Rojas, H. (2017). The politics of "unfriending": User filtration in response to political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 22-29. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.079 · DOI
  74. Yoo, J., Ng, M. Y. M., & Johnson, T. (2018). Social networking site as a political filtering machine: Predicting the act of political unfriend- ing and hiding on social networking sites. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(2), 92-119.
  75. Zhu, Q., Skoric, M., & Shen, F. (2017). I shield myself from thee: Selective avoidance on social media during political protests. Political Communication, 34(1), 112-131. 10.1080/10584 609.2016.1222471 · DOI
  76. Zhu, Q., & Skoric, M. M. (2021). From context collapse to "safe spaces": Selective avoidance through tie dissolution on social media. Mass Communication and Society, 24(6), 892-917. 10.1080/15205436.2021.1883671 · DOI
  77. Zhu, Q., & Skoric, M. M. (2022). Political implications of disconnec- tion on social media: A study of politically motivated unfriending. New Media & Society, 24(12), 2659-2679. 10.1177/1461 444821999994 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, H., Wang, Y., Lee, J., & Kim, Y.
Affiliations
Dongguk University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Yonghwan
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2023-06-12
Volume
28
Issue
4
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/jcmc/zmad022
OpenAlex
W4380371957
Cited by
34
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 2
FWCI
16.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
political polarization, affective polarization, unfriending, disagreement, incivility, social media, deliberative democracy, moderated mediation, online political discussion

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