REVIEW OF FOREIGN RESEARCH ON ATTITUDE POLARIZATIONIN ARGUMENTS AND DISPUTES
https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7235-2022-1-39-52
Abstract
Aim. To highlight the polarization features of attitudes based on recent studies Methodology. Relevant sources were selected; the methods of critical analysis, comparison and generalization were used. Results. Socio-demographic (inequality in education) and cognitive (the illusion of objectivity) factors of attitude polarization are described. The classification (institutional, effective, ideological and false) of attitudes polarization is given. The peculiarities of studying the polarization of attitudes (global, dangerous events; the political system of the country) are noted. The main promising areas of empirical research of polarization are highlighted (research in media sources, research of the Russian Federation). Research implications. The research results can be useful for studying various types of polarization of attitudes with the condition of the cultural and psychological context in Russia.
About the Author
Andrey N. Nevryuev
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Beam M. A., Hutchens M. J., Hmielowski J. D. Facebook news and (de)polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election // Information, Communication & Society. 2018. № 21 (7). P. 940-958. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1444783
2. Blatz C. W., Mercier B. False polarization and False Moderation // Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2017. № 9 (5). P. 521-529. DOI: 10.1177/1948550617712034
3. Bosancianu C. M. A growing rift in values? Income and educational inequality and their impact on mass attitude polarization // Social Science Quarterly. 2017. № 98 (5). P. 1587-1602. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12371
4. Chu H., Yang J. Z. Taking climate change here and now - mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance // Global Environmental Change. 2018. № 53. P. 174-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.013
5. Debbeler L. J., Gamp M., Blumenschein M. Polarized but illusory beliefs about tap and bottled water: A product- and consumer-oriented survey and blind tasting experiment // Science of The Total Environment. 2018. № 643. P. 1400-1410. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.190
6. Dias N., Lelkes Y. The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity [Электронный ресурс] // American Journal of Political Science. 2021. № 1. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf (дата обращения: 10.10.2021).
7. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America /j. N. Druckman, S. Klar, Y. Krupnikov, M. Levendusky, J. B. Ryan // Nature Human Behaviour. 2020. № 5 (1). P. 28-38. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5
8. Druckman J. N., Levendusky M. S. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? // Public Opinion Quarterly. 2019. № 83 (1). P. 114-122. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfz003
9. Eibach R. Ideological polarization and social psychology [Электронный ресурс] // Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. [2021]. URL: https://oxfordre.com/psychology (дата обращения: 10.10.2021).
10. Fernbach P. M., Van Boven L. False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions [Электронный ресурс] // Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022. № 43. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com (дата обращения: 10.10.2021).
11. Gidron N., Adams J., Horne W. American affective polarization in Comparative perspective (Elements in American Politics) [Электронный ресурс] // Cambridge Core. [2020]. URL: ttps://www.cambridge.org/core (дата обращения: 10.10.2021).
12. Han J., Kim Y. Defeating merchants of doubt: Subjective certainty and self-affirmation ameliorate attitude polariztion via partisan motivated reasoning // Public Understanding of Science. 2020. Vol. 29. № 7. P. 729-744. DOI: 10.1177/0963662520939315
13. Hutchens M. J., Hmielowski J. D., Beam M. A. Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization // Communication Monographs. 2019. № 86 (3). P. 357-376. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2019.1575255
14. Iyengar S., Lelkes Y., Levendusky M. The origins and consequences of Affective polarization in the United States // Annual Review of Political Science. 2019. № 22 (1). P. 129-146. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
15. Johnson B. K., Neo R. L., Heijnen M. E. Issues, involvement, and influence: Effects of selective exposure and sharing on polarization and participation [Электронный ресурс] // Computers in Human Behavior. 2020. № 104. URL: ttps://www.sciencedirect.com (дата обращения: 11.10.2021).
16. Kim Y., Kim Y. Incivility on facebook and political polarization: The mediating role of seeking further comments and negative emotion // Computers in Human Behavior. 2019. № 99. P. 219-227. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.022
17. Lees J., Cikara M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization [Электронный ресурс] // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2021. № 376 (1822). URL: https://royalsocietypublishing.org (дата обращения: 11.10.2021).
18. Myers D. G., Lamm H. The Polarizing Effect of Group Discussion // American Scientist. 1975. Vol. 63. № 3. P. 297-303.
19. Morisi D., Goldberg M. H., Jost J. Ideological asymmetries in motivated reasoning and the mechanisms of attitude polarization: A two-wave survey experiment [Электронный ресурс] // Annual APSA Conference 2020, Washington, September 13, 2020. URL: https://osf.io/agjz2 (дата обращения: 11.10.2021).
20. Ohme J. Algorithmic social media use and its relationship to attitude reinforcement and issue-specific political participation - the case of the 2015 European immigration movements // Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2020. № 18 (1). P. 36-54. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2020.1805085
21. Orian Harel T., Maoz I., Halperin E. A conflict within a conflict: Intragroup ideological polarization and intergroup intractable conflict // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2020. № 34. P. 52-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.013
22. Parker V. The Great and Widening Divide: Political False Polarization and its Consequences: a thesis … Cand. Sci. (Psychology). Wilfrid, 2018. 158 p.
23. Rogowski J. C., Tucker P. D. Critical events and attitude change: Support for gun control after mass shootings // Political Science Research and Methods. 2018. Vol. 7 (04). P. 903-911. DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2018.21
24. Schäfer S. Illusion of knowledge through facebook news? Effects of snack news in a news feed on perceived knowledge, attitude strength, and willingness for discussions [Электронный ресурс] // Computers in Human Behavior. 2020. № 103. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com (дата обращения: 11.10.2021).
25. Schmuck D., Heiss R., Matthes J. Drifting further apart? How exposure to media portrayals of muslims affects attitude polarization // Political Psychology. 2020. № 41 (6). P. 1055-1072. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12664
26. Schwalbe M. C., Cohen G. L., Ross L. D. The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election [Электронный ресурс] // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. Vol. 117 (35). URL: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/35/21218 (дата обращения: 11.10.2021).
27. Vegetti F. The political nature of ideological polarization: The case of Hungary // The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2018. № 681 (1). P. 78-96. DOI: 10.1177/0002716218813895
28. Wilson A. E., Parker V. A., Feinberg M. Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2020. № 34. P. 223-228. DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005
Review
Views:
115
Email this article 