Affective polarization in crosscutting communication networks: Offline and online evidence from Spain
Open accessAbstract
Despite its potentially pernicious consequences for social relations and democracy, the study of affective polarization has only recently proliferated. Thus, the reasons driving this development—or its consequences—are not yet adequately understood. This article addresses the role of one specific factor frequently discussed in both academic and popular debate—namely, the role of crosscutting communication among people of different political leanings. It is a longstanding notion that crosscutting communication is crucial to overcoming the prejudice, polarization, and attitudinal biases brought on by streamlined information diets. However, there is empirical evidence to suggest that crosscutting experiences sometimes elevate polarization—especially when individuals also have access to like-minded views and when disagreement is perceived as intense. The study sheds light on the connection by testing hypotheses about the association between crosscutting communication and affective polarization in both offline and online modalities of political communication. The empirical analyses were based on panel data from the E-DEM project covering a random sample of Spanish citizens interviewed up to three times between November 2018 and May 2019—that is, the time running up to the Spanish national election in 2019. The results suggest that individuals who reported engagement in face-to-face discussions with supporters of various parties (crosscutting discussions) during this time reported significantly lower levels of affective polarization compared to engagement in discussions with co-partisans exclusively. Online crosscutting and consensual discussion experiences, however, were linked to comparable levels of anti-out-group sentiment, suggesting that concerns about the impact of online communication being different from offline communication in general—and perhaps more harmful—may be overstated. Descriptive evidence furthermore indicates that most respondents who engaged in political discussions had experiences of discussions with both co-partisans and supporters of opposing parties rather than co-partisans exclusively. Again, this was true for offline and online communication alike. Insofar as the results translate to other contexts as well, they indicate that future efforts to explain any surges in affective polarization should primarily be focused on other areas of inquiry.
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?
The effects of deliberate or accidental cross-cutting and counter-attitudinal consumption can be depolarizing.
“los efectos del consumo transversal y contractitudinal deliberado o accidental pueden ser despolarizantes (Beam, Hutchens y Hmielowski, 2018;Kelly et al., 2014;Nordbrandt, 2022).”
From Dieta mediática y polarización afectiva en un sistema mediático pluralista polarizado: un estudio longitudinal de España (2026) · cites this paper as Nordbrandt, 2022
The Introduction reports links between crosscutting communication and attitude moderation, and the biased-information-processing section says some studies suggest depolarization. But the paper distinguishes lower polarization from actual depolarization; its own results concern discussions, not deliberate or accidental consumption, and do not establish a depolarizing effect for both. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926 · cited 5× · see citing works
“…social psychologists have pointed out that the processing of counter-attitudinal information is cognitively and emotionally challenging, and that it may activate biased information processing that reinforces prejudice and polarization (Festinger, 1954; Druckman and McGrath, 2019; Little, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialTudor-Hart, J. (1961) · The Eugenics review · doi:10.2307/j.ctv18zhdgz.5 · Cited by 13,635
The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society
Habermas, J., Bürger, T., & Lawrence, F. P. (1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-4175 · Cited by 12,640 · cited 5× · see citing works
“…processing For centuries, scholars from various schools of thought have highlighted political talk in the informal public sphere, and especially communication between citizens whose political views differ, as one of the core elements of democratic life (Manin, 1987; Habermas, 1989; Mutz, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialMostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One of the major benefits of panel data vis-à-vis crosssectional data is the possibility of retrieving within-unit estimates (Angrist and Pischke, 2008; Bell et al., 2018).”
BackgroundThe case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The tendency known as motivated reasoning, for instance, is a dissonance-reduction strategy whereby people inadvertently use various self-serving strategies to conclude what they wish to arrive at, even when faced with balanced arguments for and against (Kunda, 1990).”
BackgroundMostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One of the major benefits of panel data vis-à-vis crosssectional data is the possibility of retrieving within-unit estimates (Angrist and Pischke, 2008; Bell et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMotivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, 2015), and attitude reinforcement (Taber and Lodge, 2006; Karlsen et al., 2017; Bail et al., 2018).”
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 · cited 5× · see citing works
“In this paper, I focus on one potential source of affective polarization frequently featured in both academic and popular debate—namely the communication that flows horizontally between citizens in their informal social networks and the extent to which they comprise dissenting perspectives and opinions (Iyengar et al.…”
BackgroundInfluentialIyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Up until now, studies focusing on the situation in the United States have contributed significantly to the body of knowledge about affective polarization (e.g., Iyengar et al., 2012, 2019; Garrett et al., 2014; Iyengar and Westwood, 2015; Mason, 2015, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019;…”
BackgroundExposure 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 · cited 5× · see citing works
“With regard to empirical research, evidence of a “backfire effect” (Bail et al., 2018) associated with counter-attitudinal information has been mixed.”
BackgroundInfluentialHearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
Mutz, D. C. (2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2388 · Cited by 1,588 · cited 3× · see citing works
“More specifically, empirical research has revealed links between crosscutting communication and both attitude moderation (e.g., Mutz, 2002, 2006; Parsons, 2010; Lee et al., 2015), and attitude reinforcement (Taber and Lodge, 2006; Karlsen et al., 2017; Bail et al., 2018).”
BackgroundResultTweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Contrary to popular belief, a sizable body of empirical research has repeatedly discovered that people unintentionally come across more crosscutting information on online platforms like social media than they do in their face-to-face networks (Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009; Barberá et al., 2015; O’Hara and Stevens, 2015;…”
BackgroundInfluentialRecent advances in intergroup contact theory
Pettigrew, T., Tropp, L., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001 · Cited by 1,434 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several meta-analyses have concluded that both direct and indirect contacts between out-group members tend to be associated with less prejudiced attitudes (Tropp and Pettigrew, 2006; Pettigrew et al., 2011; Lemmer and Wagner, 2015; Dovidio et al., 2017).”
BackgroundWhat Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S. Daily NewspapersPreprint
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.947640 · Cited by 1,418 · see citing works
Mason, L. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12089 · Cited by 1,367 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…in the United States have contributed significantly to the body of knowledge about affective polarization (e.g., Iyengar et al., 2012, 2019; Garrett et al., 2014; Iyengar and Westwood, 2015; Mason, 2015, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019; Druckman et al., 2021).”
BackgroundTucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Previous studies have proposed reasons including heightened ideological sorting (Mason, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016), a political and high-choice media environment (Berry and Sobieraj, 2013; Del Vicario et al., 2016; Lelkes et al., 2017; Tucker et al., 2018; Iyengar et al., 2019), as well as negative campaign…”
BackgroundFrom Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory
Huddy, L. (2001) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00230 · Cited by 1,185 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Although social grouping is instinctive according to social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Huddy, 2001; Hogg, 2018), social grouping, and homophily can be troublesome for societal and political relations.”
BackgroundInfluential#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media
Zhou, A. (2017) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12344 · Cited by 1,144 · cited 5× · see citing works
“This finding is noteworthy because it contradicts a widespread assumption in the popular and scholarly discourse that online networks tend to be characterized overwhelmingly by opinion homophily—not least on social media (Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2018)—and it agrees with studies that have challenged this notion (Duboi…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMedia and Political Polarization
Prior, M. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242 · Cited by 1,125 · cited 2× · see citing works
“While there is empirical evidence to back up these notions, there have also been findings that call for cautiousness in prematurely interpreting all these factors as major culprits behind surges in affective polarization (Gentzkow and Shapiro, 2010; Prior, 2013; Nordbrandt, 2021b; Lorenzo-Rodríguez and Torcal, 2022; T…”
Background(2019) · Love's Body, Reissue of 1966 edition · doi:10.1525/9780520910409-002 · Cited by 1,096
Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice
Bell, A., Fairbrother, M., & Jones, K. (2019) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-018-0802-x · Cited by 1,085 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One of the major benefits of panel data vis-à-vis crosssectional data is the possibility of retrieving within-unit estimates (Angrist and Pischke, 2008; Bell et al., 2018).”
BackgroundCross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice
MUTZ, D. C. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004264 · Cited by 1,069 · cited 14× · see citing works
“…processing For centuries, scholars from various schools of thought have highlighted political talk in the informal public sphere, and especially communication between citizens whose political views differ, as one of the core elements of democratic life (Manin, 1987; Habermas, 1989; Mutz, 2002).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1428656 · Cited by 1,055 · see citing works
The Law of Group PolarizationPreprint
Sunstein, C. (2002) · How Change Happens · doi:10.2139/ssrn.199668 · Cited by 1,050 · cited 7× · see citing works
“Exposure to a diversity of perspectives has been considered important to counter polarization (Sunstein, 2002) and prejudice (Allport, 1954), and to promote intergroup tolerance (Mutz, 2002), and well-reflected political views (Arendt, 1968; Manin, 1987; Habermas, 1989).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialGroup polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 · Cited by 1,044 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Scholars like Sunstein (2002) and others (e.g., Isenberg, 1986; Farrar et al., 2009), argue that information sharing in politically homogeneous groups of likeminded people can cause attitudes to shift toward the extreme because of the social comparison and confirmation bias that such a form of…”
BackgroundMcCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764218759576 · Cited by 1,023 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2019), eroding trust in democratic institutions (Torcal and Carty, 2022), and leading to the legitimization of autocratic tendencies to keep mistrusted groups away from political influence (Garrett et al., 2014; Mason, 2016; McCoy et al., 2018).”
BackgroundOn Legitimacy and Political Deliberation
Manin, B. (1987) · Political Theory · doi:10.1177/0090591787015003005 · Cited by 878 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Frontiers in Political Science 04 frontiersin.org A long line of scholars has instead assigned crosscutting communication great value as a potential antidote to the problematic sides of social homophily (e.g., Mill, 1859; Arendt, 1968; Manin, 1987; Habermas, 1989; Mutz, 2002).”
BackgroundRelationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x · Cited by 840 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several meta-analyses have concluded that both direct and indirect contacts between out-group members tend to be associated with less prejudiced attitudes (Tropp and Pettigrew, 2006; Pettigrew et al., 2011; Lemmer and Wagner, 2015; Dovidio et al., 2017).”
BackgroundModeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (2011) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-071510-103222 · Cited by 825 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Such a model effectively removes all potential bias from the residual that reflects the correlation between the predictors and the past values of the dependent variable (Beck and Katz, 2011).”
BackgroundThe Rani of Sirmur: An Essay in Reading the Archives
Spivak, G. (1985) · History and Theory · doi:10.2307/2505169 · Cited by 802 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This may lead the group members to converge toward opinions that are more extreme than they were initially and sharply at odds with those held by out-groups, or to engage in “othering” of out-group members (Spivak, 1985).”
BackgroundThe evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733 · cited 2× · see citing works
“However, social psychologists have pointed out that the processing of counter-attitudinal information is cognitively and emotionally challenging, and that it may activate biased information processing that reinforces prejudice and polarization (Festinger, 1954; Druckman and McGrath, 2019; Little, 2019).”
BackgroundThe Nasty Effect: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., Xenos, M., & Ladwig, P. J. (2014) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009 · Cited by 716 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Empirical research has connected exposure to online rudeness to decreased political trust, and the polarization of thought (Anderson et al., 2014; Borah, 2014; Lyons and Veenstra, 2016).”
BackgroundThe contact hypothesis re-evaluated
Paluck, E., Green, D. P., & Green, S. (2018) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2018.25 · Cited by 711 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Some more recent studies have however, indicated that the positive effects of intergroup contact is less generic than previously assumed and that they may depend on some scope conditions (Dinesen et al., 2019; Paluck et al., 2019).”
BackgroundWojcieszak, M., & Mutz, D. C. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x · Cited by 623 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Contrary to popular belief, a sizable body of empirical research has repeatedly discovered that people unintentionally come across more crosscutting information on online platforms like social media than they do in their face-to-face networks (Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009; Barberá et al., 2015; O’Hara and Stevens, 2015;…”
BackgroundWhat do we measure when we measure affective polarization?
Druckman, J. N., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfz003 · Cited by 615 · cited 9× · see citing works
“, 2018; Kim, 2019) and attenuated (e.g., Parsons, 2010; Barberá, 2015; Beam et al., 2018; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019; Guess and Coppock, 2020; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; Padró-Solanet and Balcells, 2022) levels of polarization linked to crosscutting communication in studies with varied designs and measurements a…”
BackgroundInfluentialThe role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review
Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070 · Cited by 610 · 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 · cited 4× · see citing works
“…category two and three into a 4 Wagner’s measure of the a ective distance from one’s most liked party bears resemblance to the measure developed by Reiljan (2020) but is specifically developed tomeasure individual-level a ective polarization rather than aggregate levels of a ective polarization.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEcho Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook
Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep37825 · Cited by 576 · see citing works
Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2079 · Cited by 528 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several meta-analyses have concluded that both direct and indirect contacts between out-group members tend to be associated with less prejudiced attitudes (Tropp and Pettigrew, 2006; Pettigrew et al., 2011; Lemmer and Wagner, 2015; Dovidio et al., 2017).”
BackgroundHow Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization
Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7 · Cited by 503 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Up until now, studies focusing on the situation in the United States have contributed significantly to the body of knowledge about affective polarization (e.g., Iyengar et al., 2012, 2019; Garrett et al., 2014; Iyengar and Westwood, 2015; Mason, 2015, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019;…”
BackgroundAffective polarization in multiparty systemsPreprint
Wagner, M. (2020) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.31219/osf.io/j7d4t · Cited by 492 · cited 4× · see citing works
“It further considers the frequent clustering of parties into blocks in multiparty systems whereby individuals’ feelings may follow a corresponding block structure (Wagner, 2021; Torcal and Comellas, 2022).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAmerican Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481 · cited 8× · see citing works
“Third, the study contributes to the growing comparative research agenda on affective polarization polarization (Gidron et al., 2020; Reiljan, 2020; Boxell et al., 2022), by zooming in on Spain at an interesting point in time—namely, the 6 months preceding the 2018–2019 election year.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2017) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12237 · Cited by 476 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Previous studies have proposed reasons including heightened ideological sorting (Mason, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016), a political and high-choice media environment (Berry and Sobieraj, 2013; Del Vicario et al., 2016; Lelkes et al., 2017; Tucker et al., 2018; Iyengar et al., 2019), as well as negative campaign…”
BackgroundDoes Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion?
Price, V., Cappella, J., & Nir, L. (2002) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/105846002317246506 · Cited by 469 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, 2015); an increased propensity to adjust opinions when faced with persuasive arguments (Levitan and Visser, 2008; Himmelroos and Christensen, 2020); awareness of multiple rationales (Cappella et al., 2002; Price et al., 2002; Nir, 2005); more public-minded attitudes (Nordbrandt, 2021a); and greater tolerance toward…”
BackgroundAffective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5 · Cited by 463 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Up until now, studies focusing on the situation in the United States have contributed significantly to the body of knowledge about affective polarization (e.g., Iyengar et al., 2012, 2019; Garrett et al., 2014; Iyengar and Westwood, 2015; Mason, 2015, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019;…”
BackgroundCross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2024) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01160 · Cited by 457 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Third, the study contributes to the growing comparative research agenda on affective polarization polarization (Gidron et al., 2020; Reiljan, 2020; Boxell et al., 2022), by zooming in on Spain at an interesting point in time—namely, the 6 months preceding the 2018–2019 election year.”
BackgroundHow Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions
Barabas, J. (2004) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055404041425 · Cited by 431 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Results from a study by Barabas (2004) suggest that the risk of backlash is higher in colloquial, non-moderated, communicative settings compared to discussion settings where deliberative norms such as civility and respectfulness are encouraged, such as deliberative forums.”
BackgroundReducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430217712052 · Cited by 429 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several meta-analyses have concluded that both direct and indirect contacts between out-group members tend to be associated with less prejudiced attitudes (Tropp and Pettigrew, 2006; Pettigrew et al., 2011; Lemmer and Wagner, 2015; Dovidio et al., 2017).”
BackgroundA Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization
Mason, L. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw001 · Cited by 413 · cited 7× · see citing works
“From a social identity perspective, affective polarization may intensify as party identities become increasingly salient whereby more people divide the world into a liked and trusted political in-group and a disliked and distrusted political out-group (Mason, 2015, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialDoes Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123418000327 · Cited by 372 · cited 6× · see citing works
“, 2018; Kim, 2019) and attenuated (e.g., Parsons, 2010; Barberá, 2015; Beam et al., 2018; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019; Guess and Coppock, 2020; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; Padró-Solanet and Balcells, 2022) levels of polarization linked to crosscutting communication in studies with varied designs and measurements a…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialGarrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/hcre.12028 · Cited by 351 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Up until now, studies focusing on the situation in the United States have contributed significantly to the body of knowledge about affective polarization (e.g., Iyengar et al., 2012, 2019; Garrett et al., 2014; Iyengar and Westwood, 2015; Mason, 2015, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019;…”
BackgroundInfluentialCivility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion
Rowe, I. (2014) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.940365 · Cited by 338 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…standards of decency are more easily violated than they do in networks that enable face-toface interaction, and online communication frequently elicits more unpleasant feelings than in-real-life (IRL) interaction environment (Rowe, 2015; Bail et al., 2018; Theocharis et al., 2020, p. 2).”
BackgroundReasoning Is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation
Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. E. (2012) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x · Cited by 318 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This type of more effortful processing of information where individuals take both new and old as well as pro and con arguments into consideration, is here referred to as deliberative information processing (Mercier and Landemore, 2012).”
BackgroundTwo social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes
Lieberman, A., & Schroeder, J. (2020) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.022 · Cited by 252 · cited 1× · see citing works
“When political topics come up online, it is easier to be a passive observer (Lieberman and Schroeder, 2020).”
BackgroundCappella, J., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/105846002317246498 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Exposure to Political Disagreement in Social Media Versus Face-to-Face and Anonymous Online Settings
Barnidge, M. (2016) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1235639 · Cited by 246 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Contrary to popular belief, a sizable body of empirical research has repeatedly discovered that people unintentionally come across more crosscutting information on online platforms like social media than they do in their face-to-face networks (Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009; Barberá et al., 2015; O’Hara and Stevens, 2015;…”
BackgroundDisagreeing About Disagreement: How Conflict in Social Networks Affects Political Behavior
Klofstad, C. A., Sokhey, A., & McClurg, S. (2013) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00620.x · Cited by 230 · see citing works
The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility
Berry, J., & Sobieraj, S. (2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.186974 · Cited by 228 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Previous studies have proposed reasons including heightened ideological sorting (Mason, 2016; Rogowski and Sutherland, 2016), a political and high-choice media environment (Berry and Sobieraj, 2013; Del Vicario et al., 2016; Lelkes et al., 2017; Tucker et al., 2018; Iyengar et al., 2019), as well as negative campaign…”
BackgroundEthnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review
Dinesen, P. T., Schaeffer, M., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2020) · Annual review of political science (Palo Alto, Calif. Print) · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708 · Cited by 221 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some more recent studies have however, indicated that the positive effects of intergroup contact is less generic than previously assumed and that they may depend on some scope conditions (Dinesen et al., 2019; Paluck et al., 2019).”
BackgroundFacebook news and (de)polarization: reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election
Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1444783 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
How Polarized Are Online and Offline News Audiences? A Comparative Analysis of Twelve Countries
Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161219892768 · Cited by 208 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Moreover, a limited number of studies hitherto (Wojcieszak and Price, 2010; Baek et al., 2012; Strandberg et al., 2019; Fletcher et al., 2020) have contrasted the attitudinal implications of offline and online communication within the same study, let alone with identical measures, hampering the possibilities for fruit…”
BackgroundBorah, P. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650212449353 · Cited by 206 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Empirical research has connected exposure to online rudeness to decreased political trust, and the polarization of thought (Anderson et al., 2014; Borah, 2014; Lyons and Veenstra, 2016).”
BackgroundOnline versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects?
Baek, Y., Wojcieszak, M., & Carpini, M. X. D. (2012) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444811413191 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Ambivalent Social Networks and Their Consequences for Participation
Nir, L. (2005) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh069 · Cited by 194 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2015); an increased propensity to adjust opinions when faced with persuasive arguments (Levitan and Visser, 2008; Himmelroos and Christensen, 2020); awareness of multiple rationales (Cappella et al., 2002; Price et al., 2002; Nir, 2005); more public-minded attitudes (Nordbrandt, 2021a); and greater tolerance toward…”
BackgroundA critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure
Dahlgren, P. (2021) · Nordicom review/NORDICOM review · doi:10.2478/nor-2021-0002 · Cited by 179 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Contrary to popular belief, a sizable body of empirical research has repeatedly discovered that people unintentionally come across more crosscutting information on online platforms like social media than they do in their face-to-face networks (Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009; Barberá et al., 2015; O’Hara and Stevens, 2015;…”
BackgroundThe Dynamics of Political Incivility on Twitter
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., & Popa, S. A. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020919447 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Does Enclave Deliberation Polarize Opinions?
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9304-x · Cited by 171 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 2009), argue that information sharing in politically homogeneous groups of likeminded people can cause attitudes to shift toward the extreme because of the social comparison and confirmation bias that such a form of communication can provoke (e.g., Binder et al., 2009; Grönlund et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2015).”
BackgroundChen, G. M., & Lu, S.-N. (2017) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922 · Cited by 166 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Simultaneously, scholars often assume that norms such as respectfulness and reciprocity are important for realizing deliberative as opposed to biased information processing (Baek et al., 2012; Chen and Lu, 2017; Pew Research Center, 2020).”
BackgroundEcho chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates
Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017) · European Journal of Communication · doi:10.1177/0267323117695734 · Cited by 154 · cited 6× · see citing works
“, Barberá, 2015; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; PadróSolanet and Balcells, 2022), and still, other pieces of evidence are based on experimental manipulation of crosscutting exposure or discussion (e.g., Taber and Lodge, 2006; Wojcieszak and Price, 2010; Karlsen et al., 2017; Bail et al., 2018; Druckman and Levendusky,…”
BackgroundInfluentialStrandberg, K., Himmelroos, S., & Grönlund, K. (2019) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/0192512117692136 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn5515 · Cited by 126 · cited 6× · see citing works
“In this paper, I focus on one potential source of affective polarization frequently featured in both academic and popular debate—namely the communication that flows horizontally between citizens in their informal social networks and the extent to which they comprise dissenting perspectives and opinions (Iyengar et al.…”
BackgroundInfluentialEcho chambers and online radicalism: assessing the internet’s complicity in violent extremism
O'Hara, K., & Stevens, D. (2015) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.88 · Cited by 123 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Contrary to popular belief, a sizable body of empirical research has repeatedly discovered that people unintentionally come across more crosscutting information on online platforms like social media than they do in their face-to-face networks (Wojcieszak and Mutz, 2009; Barberá et al., 2015; O’Hara and Stevens, 2015;…”
BackgroundTicking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization
Harteveld, E. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102337 · Cited by 120 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Like other recent studies (Harteveld, 2021; Torcal and Comellas, 2022), the measure of affective polarization employed in this study is based on Wagner’s (2021) individual-level “Affective polarization index” (API).”
MethodNordbrandt, M. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211044393 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Self-citationKim, Y. (2015) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699015596328 · Cited by 109 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Some evidence is derived from self-reported perceptions of exposure or discussion (e.g., Parsons, 2010; Garrett et al., 2014; Kim, 2015, 2019), other studies track actual exposure (e.g., Barberá, 2015; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; PadróSolanet and Balcells, 2022), and still, other pieces of…”
BackgroundTorcal, M., & Comellas, J. M. (2022) · South European Society and Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2022.2044236 · Cited by 101 · cited 17× · see citing works
“Third, the study contributes to the growing comparative research agenda on affective polarization polarization (Gidron et al., 2020; Reiljan, 2020; Boxell et al., 2022), by zooming in on Spain at an interesting point in time—namely, the 6 months preceding the 2018–2019 election year.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialComing to Dislike Your Opponents: The Polarizing Impact of Political CampaignsPreprint
Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2840225 · Cited by 98 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, 2019), as well as negative campaign advertising and stereotypes (Sood and Iyengar, 2016).”
BackgroundFarrar, C., Green, D., Green, J., Nickerson, D. W., & Shewfelt, S. (2009) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00717.x · Cited by 84 · cited 2× · see citing works
“To signal their belonging to the group, they tend to adjust the attitudes they express to align with what they perceive to be the dominant position of the group, and/or to express these attitudes in a manner more antagonistic to the members of other groups (Isenberg, 1986; Sunstein, 2002; Farrar et al., 2009).”
BackgroundLevitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.03.004 · Cited by 84 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, 2015); an increased propensity to adjust opinions when faced with persuasive arguments (Levitan and Visser, 2008; Himmelroos and Christensen, 2020); awareness of multiple rationales (Cappella et al.”
BackgroundThe Soul of a Polarized Democracy
Binder, A., Dalrymple, K., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2009) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650209333023 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Cross-Cutting Exposure on Political Participation
Matthes, J., Knoll, J., Valenzuela, S., Hopmann, D., & von Sikorski, C. (2019) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638 · Cited by 78 · cited 1× · see citing works
“I refer to the communication that occurs between citizens with various political voting preferences as crosscutting communication, in keeping with earlier studies (e.g., Mutz, 2002, 2006; Lee et al., 2015; Matthes et al., 2019).”
ResultWojcieszak, M., & Price, V. (2010) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00753.x · Cited by 77 · cited 6× · see citing works
“, Barberá, 2015; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; PadróSolanet and Balcells, 2022), and still, other pieces of evidence are based on experimental manipulation of crosscutting exposure or discussion (e.g., Taber and Lodge, 2006; Wojcieszak and Price, 2010; Karlsen et al., 2017; Bail et al., 2018; Druckman and Levendusky,…”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Challenge of Controlling for SES in Social Science and Education Research
Jeynes, W. (2002) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1014678822410 · Cited by 76 · cited 1× · see citing works
“All the models isolated the relationship between education and income—variables that tend to correlate strongly with many other attitudinal and behavioral variables (Jeynes, 2002).”
BackgroundSocial Networks and the Affective Impact of Political Disagreement
Parsons, B. M. (2009) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-009-9100-6 · Cited by 70 · cited 7× · see citing works
“These include depolarized emotions (Parsons, 2010; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021); reflection from different standpoints (Lee et al., 2015); an increased propensity to adjust opinions when faced with persuasive arguments (Levitan and Visser, 2008; Himmelroos and Christensen, 2020); awareness of…”
BackgroundInfluentialLee, H., Kwak, N., & Campbell, S. W. (2015) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650213483824 · Cited by 69 · cited 4× · see citing works
“More specifically, empirical research has revealed links between crosscutting communication and both attitude moderation (e.g., Mutz, 2002, 2006; Parsons, 2010; Lee et al., 2015), and attitude reinforcement (Taber and Lodge, 2006; Karlsen et al.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Distortion of Related Beliefs
Little, A. (2019) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12435 · Cited by 49 · cited 4× · see citing works
“…social psychologists have pointed out that the processing of counter-attitudinal information is cognitively and emotionally challenging, and that it may activate biased information processing that reinforces prejudice and polarization (Festinger, 1954; Druckman and McGrath, 2019; Little, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialWojcieszak, M., Winter, S., & Yu, X. (2020) · Mass Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2020.1714663 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Kim, Y. (2019) · International journal of public opinion research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edy032 · Cited by 39 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Some evidence is derived from self-reported perceptions of exposure or discussion (e.g., Parsons, 2010; Garrett et al., 2014; Kim, 2015, 2019), other studies track actual exposure (e.g., Barberá, 2015; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; PadróSolanet and Balcells, 2022), and still, other pieces of…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLyons, B. A., & Veenstra, A. S. (2016) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0319 · Cited by 36 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Empirical research has connected exposure to online rudeness to decreased political trust, and the polarization of thought (Anderson et al., 2014; Borah, 2014; Lyons and Veenstra, 2016).”
BackgroundTorcal, M., Santana, A. G., Carty, E., & Comellas, J. (2020) · Data in Brief · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.106059 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Partisan Sentiments and Political Trust: A Longitudinal Study of Spain
Torcal, M., & Carty, E. (2022) · South European Society & Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2022.2047555 · Cited by 23 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…and lay sectors that social media, in particular, and online communication, in general, may exacerbate polarization in society (Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2018)—empirical studies have reached different conclusions (Kubin and von Sikorski, 2021; Nordbrandt, 2021b; LorenzoRodríguez and Torcal, 2022).”
BackgroundMedia Diet and Polarisation: Evidence from Spain
Padró-Solanet, A., & Balcells, J. (2022) · South European Society & Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2022.2046400 · Cited by 22 · cited 6× · see citing works
“, 2018; Kim, 2019) and attenuated (e.g., Parsons, 2010; Barberá, 2015; Beam et al., 2018; Druckman and Levendusky, 2019; Guess and Coppock, 2020; Levendusky and Stecula, 2021; Padró-Solanet and Balcells, 2022) levels of polarization linked to crosscutting communication in studies with varied designs and measurements a…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEveland, W. P., Appiah, O., & Beck, P. (2018) · Soc. Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2017.08.002 · Cited by 22 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This finding is noteworthy because it contradicts a widespread assumption in the popular and scholarly discourse that online networks tend to be characterized overwhelmingly by opinion homophily—not least on social media (Pariser, 2011; Sunstein, 2018)—and it agrees with studies that have challenged this notion (Duboi…”
ResultTwitter and Affective Polarisation: Following Political Leaders in Spain
Rodríguez, J. L., & Torcal, M. (2022) · South European Society & Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2022.2047554 · Cited by 18 · cited 1× · see citing works
“While there is empirical evidence to back up these notions, there have also been findings that call for cautiousness in prematurely interpreting all these factors as major culprits behind surges in affective polarization (Gentzkow and Shapiro, 2010; Prior, 2013; Nordbrandt, 2021b; Lorenzo-Rodríguez and Torcal, 2022; T…”
BackgroundChapter 5 Social Identity Theory
Hogg, M. (2020) · Contemporary Social Psychological Theories · doi:10.1515/9781503605626-007 · Cited by 16 · cited 2×
“Although social grouping is instinctive according to social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Huddy, 2001; Hogg, 2018), social grouping, and homophily can be troublesome for societal and political relations.”
BackgroundHimmelroos, S., & Christensen, H. S. (2018) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/s41269-018-0103-3 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Nordbrandt, M. (2020) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2020.1787063 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
7 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Arendt, H. (1968). Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin.
- Levendusky, M, and Stecula, D. (2021). "We need to talk: how cross- party dialogue reduces affective polarization, " in Elements in Experimental Political Science, ed Druckman J (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781009042192 · DOI
- 022 · DOI · Paper page
- Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., and MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. Penguin UK. doi: 10.3139/9783446431164 · DOI · Paper page
- abn5515 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Affective polarization and dynamics of information spread in online networks
Lerman, K., Feldman, D., He, Z., & Rao, A. (2024) · npj Complexity · doi:10.1038/s44260-024-00008-w · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“1: when replying to people closer to them in a network (e.g., a retweet network), users express more positive emotions, but when replying to those who are farther away, they express more negative emotions and toxicity.”
Utilizing Social Media As a Strategic Communication Tool By The Minister In Indonesia
Anggara, R., al Hamdi, R., & Suswanta (2024) · JURNAL IPTEKKOM Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan & Teknologi Informasi · doi:10.17933/iptekkom.25.2.2023.241-256 · Cited by 4
“Information is a basic need for everyone, both for personal development and their social environment (Nordbrandt 2022).”
BackgroundCuéllar Rivero, R. (2026) · Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas · doi:10.5477/cis/reis.194.25-44
“En tercer lugar, los efectos del consumo trans-versal y contractitudinal deliberado o accidental pueden ser despolarizantes (Beam, Hutchens y Hmielowski, 2018; Kelly et al. , 2014; Nordbrandt, 2022).”
Social Media as an Alter Ego of Reality: What Does Affective Political Polarization Teach Us?
Стукал, Д., Shilina, A. N., & Ахременко, А. С. (2025) · RUDN Journal of Political Science · doi:10.22363/2313-1438-2025-27-3-430-443
“There are practically no studies that would aim to directly compare affective polarization in the digital and traditional environments (with a few exceptions — [Baek, Wojcieszak, Delli Carpini 2012; Nordbrandt 2022]).”
Shadiqi, M. A., Putra, I. E., Rizqullah, M. F., I’anah, N., Milla, M. N., & Muluk, H. (2025) · Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · doi:10.1111/asap.70013
- Authors
- Nordbrandt, M.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Nordbrandt, Maria
- ORCID
- Nordbrandt, Maria
- Venue
- Frontiers in Political Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-09-07
- Volume
- 4
- ISSN
- 2673-3145 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4297825833
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 106
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Political Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Uppsala Universitet
- 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, political debate, online political communication
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