Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research

Center for Asian Public Opinion Research & Collaboration Initiative (충남대학교 아시아여론조사학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exposure to Cross-Cutting Information on Social Media and Perceived Political Polarization

  • Received : 2024.08.19
  • Accepted : 2024.11.22
  • Published : 2024.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Using data from a survey of 2,641 South Korean adults in 2023, this study examines the impact of exposure to cross-cutting political information in social media on perceived political polarization. Findings indicate that exposure to cross-cutting political information in social media is associated with lower levels of perceived polarization. However, the positive effect is offset by high political interest, which leads to reinforcement of preexisting beliefs and amplification of polarization. Ideological differences also play a significant role, with conservatives exhibiting greater resistance to challenging information. Additionally, higher education levels intensify perceived polarization by reinforcing ideological allegiances.

Keywords

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other "authoritarian personality." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
  3. Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2021). United we stand, divided we rule: How political polarization erodes democracy. Democratization, 28(2), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1818068
  4. Baek, Y. M., & Wojcieszak, M. E. (2009). Don't expect too much! Learning from late-night comedy and knowledge item difficulty. Communication Research, 36(6), 783-809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209346805
  5. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
  6. Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408-446. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1010098
  7. Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu011
  8. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics (Working Paper No. 23258). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23258
  9. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
  10. Camaj, L. (2019). From selective exposure to selective information processing: A motivated reasoning approach. Media and communication, 7(3), 8-11. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.2289
  11. Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political psychology, 29(6), 807-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
  12. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808-822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
  13. Denefrio, S., Dennis-Tiwary, T. A., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. (2018). Threat sensitivity. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham.
  14. Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9587-9592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704882114
  15. Ehret, P. J., Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: Understanding climate policy polarization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/194855061875870
  16. Fincham, J. E. (2008). Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the Journal. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(2), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj720243
  17. Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L., & Bradburn, N. (2021). Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on "America in one room." American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464-1481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000642
  18. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
  19. Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003
  20. Garrett, R. K., & Stroud, N. J. (2014). Partisan paths to exposure diversity: Differences in pro-and counterattitudinal news consumption. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 680-701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12105
  21. Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation--the left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376
  22. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2009). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press.
  23. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.4.449
  24. Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). American Psychological Association.
  25. Hartman, R., Blakey, W., Womick, J., Bail, C., Finkel, E. J., Han, H., Sarrouf, J., Schroeder, J., Sheeran, P., Van Bavel, J. J., Willer, R., & Gray, K. (2022). Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(9), 1194-1205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01442-3
  26. Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2015). Why Washington won't work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.
  27. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297-307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13001192
  29. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
  30. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
  31. Jaccard, J., Wan, C. K., & Turrisi, R. (1990). The detection and interpretation of interaction effects between continuous variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(4), 467-478. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2504_4
  32. Jang, S-H., & Sun, J. (2019). Dual structures of partisan polarization in the Korean electorate: Political identity, issue preferences, political sophistication. Korean Party Studies Review, 18(3), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.30992/KPSR.2019.09.18.3.5
  33. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
  34. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.
  35. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision making, 8(4), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271
  36. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
  37. Kalton, G. (2020). Introduction to survey sampling. Sage.
  38. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: Seizing and freezing. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
  39. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480– 498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
  40. Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434– 443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014
  41. Lavine, H., Lodge, M., Polichak, J., & Taber, C. (2002). Explicating the black box through experimentation: Studies of authoritarianism and threat. Political Analysis, 10(4), 343-361. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.4.343
  42. Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1086/688223
  43. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
  44. Lynn, P. (2013). Alternative sequential mixed-mode designs: Effects on attrition rates, attrition bias, and costs. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 1(2), 183– 205. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt015
  45. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
  46. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University.
  47. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838-855. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088437
  48. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
  49. Nir, L. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq076
  50. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
  51. Park, S. (2014). Why does the political polarization continue in SNS? - Focusing on the subject of the communication, the reliability of the information in the types of SNS and the trust of other people. Social Science Research Review, 30(1), 235-252.
  52. Pew Research Center. (2023, November 15). Social media and news fact sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news fact-sheet/
  53. Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
  54. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(3), 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600780796
  55. Steinfeld, N., & Lev-on, A. (2024). Exposure to diverse political views in contemporary media environments. Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1384706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1384706
  56. Strickler, R. (2017). Partisan polarization, social identity, and deliberative democracy in the United States [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina].
  57. Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. Oxford University Press.
  58. Sul, J. (2018). Millennials' mobile news consumption and the impact of social media. Journal of Internet Computing and Services, 19(4), 123-133.
  59. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
  60. Taber, C.S., &Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation ofpolitical beliefs. American Journal ofPolitical Science, 50(3), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j1540-5907.2006.00214.x
  61. Tsfati, Y. (2020). Personality factors differentiating selective approach, selective avoidance, and the belief in the importance of silencing others: Further evidence for discriminant validity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(3), 488-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz031
  62. Tynes, B. M., Umana-Taylor, A. J., Rose, C. A., Lin, J., & Anderson, C. J. (2019). Online racial discrimination and psychological adjustment among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(4), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.021
  63. van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
  64. Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V., & Steinmetz, S. (2016). Non-probability sampling. In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. Smith, & Y. C. Fu. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of survey methods (Vol. 1, pp. 329-345). Sage.
  65. Vitak, J., Kim, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., & Carr, C. T. (2019). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 69(2), 142–162.
  66. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1049
  67. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947–1958. https:/doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947
  68. Zhou,S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., Moyer,A., & Hewstone, M. (2019). The extended contacthypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years ofresearch. Personality and Social Psychology Review,23(2), 132-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647