Cited by 5Social Media and PoliticsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and Politics

Affective polarization in crosscutting communication networks: Offline and online evidence from Spain

Open access
Nordbrandt, Maria·2022·Frontiers in Political Science

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpos.2022.921188

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 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?

  • 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

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

  1. Arendt, H. (1968). Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin.
  2. 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
  3. 022 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., and MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. Penguin UK. doi: 10.3139/9783446431164 · DOI · Paper page
  6. abn5515 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nordbrandt, M.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Nordbrandt, Maria
Venue
Frontiers in Political Science
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
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