Search results

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.

There is considerable disagreement among scholars as to whether social media fuels polarization in society. However, a few have considered the possibility that polarization may instead affect social media usage. To address this gap, the study uses Dutch panel data to test directionality in the relationship between social media use and affective polarization. No support was found for the hypothesis that social media use contributed to the level of affective polarization. Instead, the results lend support to the hypothesis that it was the level of affective polarization that affected subsequent use of social media. The results furthermore reveal heterogeneous patterns among individuals, depending on their previous level of social media usage, and across different social media platforms. The study gives reason to call into question the predominating assumption in previous research that social media is a major driver of polarization in society.

The idea that it is desirable for citizens to engage in communication with fellow citizens who hold differing political views – so-called cross-cutting communication – is widespread in different lines of political thought. There is uncertainty, however, as to whether the colloquial cross-cutting communication found in the everyday life of citizens tends to engender important democratic virtues in practice. If it does, moreover, which are the virtues in question? Or does communication of this kind sooner activate psychological defense mechanisms that foster pa-rochialism and fortify pre-existing biases? The aim of this dissertation is to examine, both theoretically and empirically, the democratic roles played by the cross-cutting communication that takes place in the day-to-day life of ordinary citizens. The empirical part of the dissertation comprises three essays, which study the potential of cross-cutting communication to promote two specific civic virtues: public-minded thinking (Essay I) and inter-group respect (Essays II and III). By utilizing cross-sectional and panel survey data from three different countries – the US, the Netherlands, and Spain – the essays shed light on these relationships in both face-to-face and online venues for political communication. The results of the studies support the notion that cross-cutting communication, whether it occurs offline or online, may indeed help to promote certain important civic virtues. The dissertation furthermore shows that cross-cutting communication may contribute to alleviating two of the most pressing issues in modern society – the climate crisis and escalating intergroup animosity – while at the same time helping to uphold democratic values and practices.