The evolving study of political polarization
Open accessAbstract
The study of political polarization has undergone significant conceptual and methodological evolution, progressing from early emphases on ideological divides toward a more complex understanding that incorporates affective, identity-based, digital, and cross-national dimensions. This shift reflects the growing recognition that polarization is not merely a divergence of policy preferences, but a multifaceted phenomenon shaped by emotional, social, technological, and epistemic processes. In this review, we provide an elaboration of the various ways to approach the study of political polarization. This task may be daunting, but a well-organized, comprehensive and interdisciplinary overview is surely necessary. We begin by elaborating different types of political polarization, moving from an early focus on ideological divides to multidimensional constructs. Then, we shift to an overview of key disciplinary concepts and theoretical approaches for examining political polarization. At the heart of this review, we elaborate the various methodologies and methods for studying polarization, including quantitative, computational/digital, experimental, and qualitative approaches. We also highlight the strengths and limitations of these methodologies. To conclude the review, we first offer some suggestions for interventions that could mitigate the effects of polarization, and second, point to directions for future research. We suggest expanding the national focus that has dominated the study of polarization, highlighting the benefits of cross-national comparisons with a global reach.
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.
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
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior
Park, J. S., O'Brien, J., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 · Cited by 2,187 · 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 · see citing works
Affective 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
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These models allow researchers to test “ what-if ” scenarios, such as how algorithmic personalization or bot amplification might drive affective divides, even in the absence of ideological extremism (Törnberg, 2022; Pescetelli et al., 2022).”
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
Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005 · Cited by 220 · 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
Understanding and combating misperceived polarization
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0143 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Incivility is rising among American politicians on twitter
Frimer, J. A., Aujla, H., Feinberg, M., Skitka, L. J., Aquino, K., Eichstaedt, J. C., & Willer, R. (2023) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/19485506221083811 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C., & Yarchi, M. (2020) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305120944393 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization
Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.001 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Comellas, J. M., & Torcal, M. (2023) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102615 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Marino, M., Iacono, R., & Mollerstrom, J. (2024) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102578 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Erdogan, E., Jaworsky, B. N., Álvares, C., Bodroža, B., Butkevičienė, E., Cela, E., Dodeigne, J., Fahmy, S. S., Schäfer, S. H., Scott, G., Velasco Arias, G., & Zamora Medina, R.
- Affiliations
- International Relations Istanbul Istanbul Bilgi University
- Masaryk University (CZ)
- Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (PT)
- University of Novi Sad (RS)
- Kaunas University of Technology (LT)
- Tirana Western Balkans University
- University of Namur (BE)
- American University in Cairo (EG)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- University of the West of Scotland (GB)
- Getafe Community of Madrid University Carlos III of Madrid
- Murcia Region of Murcia University of Murcia Faculty of Communication and Information
- Corresponding author
- Jaworsky, Bernadette Nadya
- ORCID
- Venue
- Open Research Europe
- Publisher
- CERN
- Published
- 2026-04-07
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 93
- ISSN
- 2732-5121 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7151259355
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Open Research Europe (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The UWS Academic Portal (University of the West of Scotland) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Repository of the University of Namur (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- The UWS Academic Portal (University of the West of Scotland) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Repositório do ISCTE-IUL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Horizon Europe Framework Programme (CA22165)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, ideological divisions, affective polarization, digital polarization, cross-national comparison, computational methods, experimental method
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
