Dynamics of Political Polarization
Open accessAbstract
This article accounts for two puzzling paradoxes. The first paradox is the simultaneous absence and presence of attitude polarization—the fact that global attitude polarization is relatively rare, even though pundits describe it as common. The second paradox is the simultaneous presence and absence of social polarization—the fact that while individuals experience attitude homogeneity in their interpersonal networks, their networks are characterized by attitude heterogeneity. These paradoxes give rise to numerous scholarly arguments. By developing a formal model of interpersonal influence over attitudes in a context where individuals hold simultaneous positions on multiple issues, we show why these arguments are not mutually exclusive and how they meaningfully refer to the same social setting. The results from this model provide a single parsimonious account for both paradoxes. The framework we develop may be generalized to a wider array of problems, including classic problems in collective action.
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?
Selective disclosure could result in pluralistic ignorance because only certain political views are expressed, and disagreement is suppressed.
“This could result in pluralistic ignorance (an exaggerated appearance of homogeneity) because only certain political views are expressed, and disagreement is suppressed233–236.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [234]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 85 · Cited by 455
- Authors
- Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baldassarri, Delia
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 784-811
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2124018206
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
- Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, attitude polarization, social polarization, interpersonal influence, interpersonal networks, collective action
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