Affective polarization in the digital age: Testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties
Open accessAbstract
There is considerable disagreement among scholars as to whether social media fuels polarization in society. However, a few have considered the possibility that polarization may instead affect social media usage. To address this gap, the study uses Dutch panel data to test directionality in the relationship between social media use and affective polarization. No support was found for the hypothesis that social media use contributed to the level of affective polarization. Instead, the results lend support to the hypothesis that it was the level of affective polarization that affected subsequent use of social media. The results furthermore reveal heterogeneous patterns among individuals, depending on their previous level of social media usage, and across different social media platforms . The study gives reason to call into question the predominating assumption in previous research that social media is a major driver of polarization in society.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Nordbrandt and Nyhan et al. observed that while social media usage does not directly influence affective polarization, prior patterns of social media engagement can shape this relationship.
“For instance, Nordbrandt [76], Nyhan et al. [77] observed that while social media usage does not directly influence affective polarization-the individuals' sympathy or antipathy toward specific political parties-prior patterns of social media engagement can shape this relationship.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [76]
The Conclusion and discussion reports that starting or increasing social media use did not affect affective polarization over time. It also says prior usage conditioned the reverse relationship—how affective polarization affected later social media use—not an effect of social media use on polarization. The citing sentence blurs that direction. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting polarization shapes social media usage patterns, rather than social media driving societal polarization.
“Nordbrandt [76] challenged the assumption that social media drives societal polarization, instead proposing that existing polarization shapes social media usage patterns.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [76]
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
Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpi014 · Cited by 6,223 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Therefore, the interaction models follow the convention to include all constitutive terms in the interaction models (Brambor et al., 2006).”
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · 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
Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114 · Cited by 1,396 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other pieces of evidence further indicate that emotionally charged and morally laden online content tends to attract users’ attention and go viral to a greater extent than neutrally disseminated messages (Brady et al., 2017).”
BackgroundAffective Polarization in Multiparty Systems
Wagner, M. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Reiljan, A. (2020) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12351 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2795110 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017) · doi:10.3386/w23258 · Cited by 226 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Still others have concluded that the rise of the Internet, and social media in particular, likely plays a limited part in polarization processes vis-à-vis other social and political forces (Boxell et al., 2017; Prior, 2013).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- Allison PD (2005) Causal inference with panel data. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Sociology Association 10. Available at: https://statisticalhorizons.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/01/Causal-Inference.pdf
- Angrist JD and Pischke J-S (2008) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Baek YM, Wojcieszak M and Delli Carpini MX (2012) Online versus face-to-face deliberation: who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society 14(3): 363-383.
- Bakshy E, Messing S and Adamic LA (2015) Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239): 1130-1132.
- Barberá P, Jost JT, Nagler J, et al. (2015) Tweeting from left to right: is online political communi- cation more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science 26(10): 1531-1542.
- Carr CT and Hayes RA (2015) Social media: defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication 23(1): 46-65.
- De Boef S and Keele L (2008) Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184-200.
- Druckman JN and Levendusky MS (2019) What do we measure when we measure affective polar- ization? Public Opinion Quarterly 83(1): 114-122.
- Dubois E and Blank G (2018) The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society 21(5): 729-745.
- Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2): 117-140.
- Fiorina MP and Abrams SJ (2008) Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 563-588.
- Garimella K and Weber I (2017) A long-term analysis of polarization on Twitter (ICWSM 2017). In: Proceedings of the eleventh international AAAI conference on web and social media. Available at: https://ingmarweber.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/A-Long-Term-Analysis- of-Polarization-on-Twitter.pdf
- Halpern D and Gibbs J (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior 29(3): 1159-1168.
- Jeynes WH (2002) The challenge of controlling for SES in social science and education research. Educational Psychology Review 14(2): 205-221.
- Karlsen R, Steen-Johnsen K, Wollebæk D, et al. (2017) Echo chamber and trench warfare dynam- ics in online debates. European Journal of Communication 32(3): 257-273.
- Kim Y (2015) Does disagreement mitigate polarization? How selective exposure and disagreement affect political polarization. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 92(4): 915-937.
- Kruse LM, Norris DR and Flinchum JR (2018) Social media as a public sphere? Politics on social media. The Sociological Quarterly 59(1): 62-84.
- Lee H, Kwak N and Campbell SW (2015) Hearing the other side revisited: the joint workings of cross-cutting discussion and strong tie homogeneity in facilitating deliberative and participa- tory democracy. Communication Research 42(4): 569-596.
- Levendusky M (2013) Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political Communication 30(4): 565-581.
- Marcus GE, Neuman WR and MacKuen M (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Mendonça RF (2015) Assessing some measures of online deliberation. Brazilian Political Science Review 9(3): 88-115.
- Moles A (2007) Autonomy, free speech and automatic behaviour. Res Publica 13(1): 53-75.
- Mouffe C (2005) On the Political. London: Routledge.
- Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Mutz DC (2007) Effects of "in-your-face" television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review 101(4): 621-635.
- Nagy P and Neff G (2015) Imagined affordance: reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society 1(2): 2056305115603385.
- Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49(6): 1417-1426.
- Noelle-Neumann E (1974) The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24(2): 43-51.
- Oz M, Zheng P and Chen GM (2018) Twitter versus Facebook: comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society 20(9): 3400-3419.
- Prior M (2013) Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16(1): 101-127.
- Purhonen S, Leguina A and Heikkilä R (2021) The space of media usage in Finland, 2007 and 2018: the impact of online activities on its structure and its association with sociopolitical divisions. Nordicom Review 42(s3): 111-128.
- Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2020a) Digital News Report. Oxford: University of Oxford. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2020b) Digital News Report-Netherlands. Oxford: University of Oxford.
- Semaan BC, Robertson SP, Douglas S, et al. (2014) Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: towards depolarization. Proceedings of the 17th ACM confer- ence on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW'14), Baltimore, MD, 15-19 February, pp. 1409-1421. New York: ACM.
- Stroud NJ (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication 60(3): 556-576.
- Sunstein C (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Taber CS and Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50: 755-769.
- Tajfel H and Turner J (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG and Worchel S (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-47.
- Tucker J, Guess A, Barbera P, et al. (2018) Social media, political polarization, and political disin- formation: a review of the scientific literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: https:// www.hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and- Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf
- Wojcieszak M (2010) "Don't talk to me": effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society 12(4): 637-655.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation
Budak, C., Nyhan, B., Rothschild, D. M., Thorson, E., & Watts, D. J. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07417-w · Cited by 156 · see citing works
A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231161880 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Polarisation, identity and affect - conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems
Röllicke, L. (2023) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102655 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Política, uso de medios y polarización afectiva en España
Crespo-Martínez, I., Melero-López, I., Mora-Rodríguez, A., & Rojo-Martínez, J.-M. (2024) · Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación · doi:10.14198/medcom.26681 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Nordbrandt, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.921188 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationCuéllar Rivero, R. (2024) · Revista Española de Ciencia Política · doi:10.21308/recp.64.07 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nordbrandt, M.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Nordbrandt, Maria
- ORCID
- Nordbrandt, Maria
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-09-19
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3392-3411
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W3199043767
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12
- FWCI
- 14.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Uppsala Universitet
- Universiteit van Tilburg
- 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
- affective polarization, social media use, political attitudes, social networking sites, partisanship
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
