Cited by 4Media Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political Participation

El papel de los medios de comunicación en contextos de polarización afectiva: una revisión sistemática de la literatura

Open access
Cuéllar Rivero, Rubén·2024·Revista Española de Ciencia Política

Abstract

Research on affective polarization is at its peak. Causes that intensify or mitigate the affective polarization environments in the contemporary democracies, as well as their consequences, remain the subject of debate. What is the relationship between the mass media and social media and affective polarization climates? Traditional and social media are inserted into a macro structure in which circulate the bulk of the political information that can be consumed, so it is necessary an examination of their role. This systematic literature review addresses all articles in the Web of Science database on the subject without restrictions (N=73). After reading the articles, the main evidence, trends, consensus, and disagreements on the subject, as well as recommendations for future researchers, are presented. The results point to minimal and heterogeneous media effects in researchs very focused on polarizing rather than depolarizing effects. It should be noted that there is greater heterogeneity and partisan moderation in information consumption than expected.

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 · 10.21308/recp.64.07

Cites

1 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: 4

  1. Revista Española de Ciencia Política. Núm. 64. Marzo 2024, pp. 179-201
  2. Fiorina, P. M., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. (2005). Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (Longman, Ed.; 3rd Edition).
  3. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. En W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psicology of Intergroup Relations. Brooks/
  4. Tsfati, Y. (2017). Frames and Reasoning: Two Pathways From Selective Exposure to Affective Polarization. International Journal of Communication, 11, 301-322. http://ijoc.org.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuéllar Rivero, R.
Venue
Revista Española de Ciencia Política
Published
2024-03-25
Pages
179-201
ISSN
1575-6548 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393144521
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Revista Española de Ciencia Política (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
affective polarization, mass media, social media, media influence, depolarization, political information, democratic society

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