CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Social Media and PoliticsPolitical Theory and DemocracyPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 133 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms

Open access
Kreiss, Daniel, McGregor, Shannon C·2024·New Media & Society
DOI 10.1177/14614448231161880
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scholars increasingly point to polarization as a central threat to democracy—and identify technology platforms as key contributors to polarization. In contrast, we argue that polarization can only be seen as a central threat to democracy if inequality is ignored. The central theoretical claim of this piece is that political identities map more or less onto social groups, and groups are, in turn, located in social structures. As such, scholars must analyze groups as they are embedded in relations of power to meaningfully evaluate the democratic consequences of polarization. Groups struggling for equality, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, often cause polarization because they threaten the extant power and status of dominant groups. To develop a shared theoretical lens around polarization and its relationship with inequality, we take up the case of research on the role of platforms in polarization, showing how scholarship routinely lacks analysis of inequality.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/14614448231161880

Cites

133 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 135 references

1 of the 135 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Gillespie T (2018) Custodians of the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  2. Guess A, Nyhan B, Lyons B, et al. (2018) Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers. Knight Foundation 2: 1–25.
  3. Hanchard MG (2018) The Spectre of Race. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Klein E (2020) Why We’re Polarized. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  5. 10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001 · DOI
  6. Panda A Siddarth D Pal J (2020) COVID BLM and the polarization of US politicians on Twitter. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03263 · arXiv
  7. Perry SL, Cobb RJ, Whitehead AL, et al. (2022) Divided by faith (in Christian America): Christian nationalism, race, and divergent perceptions of racial injustice. Social Forces 101(2): 913–942.
  8. 10.1017/CBO9780511490347 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–151 of 151

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Kreiss, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
New Media & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-04-11
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
556-579
ISSN
  • 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7315
DOI
10.1177/14614448231161880
OpenAlex
W4365142069
Cited by
151
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 16
FWCI
70.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
New Media & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
political polarization, social networking sites, inequality, democracy, political identity, social groups, power relations, Black Lives Matter, dominant groups

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