Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Dynamics of Affective Polarization: From Consensus to Partisan Divides (2403.16940v1)

Published 25 Mar 2024 in cs.SI, cs.MA, and physics.soc-ph

Abstract: Politically divided societies are also often divided emotionally: people like and trust those with similar political views (in-group favoritism) while disliking and distrusting those with different views (out-group animosity). This phenomenon, called affective polarization, influences individual decisions, including seemingly apolitical choices such as whether to wear a mask or what car to buy. We present a dynamical model of decision-making in an affectively polarized society, identifying three potential global outcomes separated by a sharp boundary in the parameter space: consensus, partisan polarization, and non-partisan polarization. Analysis reveals that larger out-group animosity compared to in-group favoritism, i.e. more hate than love, is sufficient for polarization, while larger in-group favoritism compared to out-group animosity, i.e., more love than hate, is necessary for consensus. We also show that, counter-intuitively, increasing cross-party connections facilitates polarization, and that by emphasizing partisan differences, mass media creates self-fulfilling prophecies that lead to polarization. Affective polarization also creates tipping points in the opinion landscape where one group suddenly reverses their trends. Our findings aid in understanding and addressing the cascading effects of affective polarization, offering insights for strategies to mitigate polarization.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (18)
  1. American Journal of Sociology 120, 1473–1511 (2015).
  2. J. Wick, Taylor swift has driven some far-right pundits to do the unthinkable: Cheer for san francisco. Los Angeles Times (2024).
  3. Public opinion quarterly 76, 405–431 (2012).
  4. American journal of political science 59, 690–707 (2015).
  5. Handbook on politics and public opinion p. 257 (2022).
  6. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).
  7. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 24144–24153 (2020).
  8. Annual review of political science 22, 129–146 (2019).
  9. American Politics Research 45, 621–647 (2017).
  10. Journal of Experimental Political Science 8, 247–259 (2021).
  11. PeerJ computer science 1, e38 (2015).
  12. Nature communications 12, 5580 (2021).
  13. P. Törnberg, How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2207159119 (2022).
  14. S. Thurner, New forms of collaboration between the social and natural sciences could become necessary for understanding rapid collective transitions in social systems. Perspectives on Psychological Science p. 17456916231201135 (2023).
  15. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9216–9221 (2018).
  16. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.07556 (2016).
  17. Annual review of sociology 27, 415–444 (2001).
  18. J. Cortes, Discontinuous dynamical systems. IEEE Control systems magazine 28, 36–73 (2008).
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Buddhika Nettasinghe (17 papers)
  2. Allon G. Percus (21 papers)
  3. Kristina Lerman (197 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.