The Rise of Uncivil Agreement

Abstract

The debate over whether polarization is occurring in the mass public has been limited by a lack of definition and theory. This article contributes to both, arguing that polarization can be characterized as either behavioral polarization or issue position polarization, but that the two are not synonymous. One reason for the difference between the two types of polarization is that the partisan-ideological sorting that has occurred over the past few decades has contributed to behavioral polarization, but not as strongly to issue position polarization.

The Polarizing Impact of News Coverage on Populist Attitudes in the Public: Evidence from a Panel Study in four European Democracies

“…The result is a polarization of public sentiment on this question. While, traditionally, polarization is regarded as increasing partisanship within different camps of a party system (Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008;Fiorina & Abrams, 2008;Iyengar et al, 2012;Mason, 2013), the populist ideology introduces another societal divide: the alleged antagonism between the ruling, corrupt elite and the upright people. In doing so it bridges traditional divides.…”

“…At the same time, however, individuals rather identifying with the societal mainstream and its exisiting political institutions are deterred (Hameleers et al, 2016). This speaks to a large body of research on societal polarization that has observed increasing divides in the US political landscape in terms of partisan affect and identification while issue positions are even converging (see, e.g., Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, 2012;Mason, 2013). Media messages promoting the populist ideology could contribute to such a polarization.…”

Drifting Further Apart? How Exposure to Media Portrayals of Muslims Affects Attitude Polarization

“…Last, on a positive note, scholars have argued that issue-specific polarization can more easily be attenuated than partisan or ideological polarization, because unlike partisan polarization it can be resolved by reasoned debate or better education on issue content (Mason, 2013). Thus, information campaigns and knowledge transfer via the media (see e.g., Scharrer & Ramasubramanian, 2015) about other cultures and religions may be a fruitful approach to avoid societal segments to further drifting apart on the issue of Muslim immigration.…”

“…The existing literature on political attitude polarization differentiates between partisan polarization, which is characterized by a reinforcement of existing partisan ideology (Feldman, 2011;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015), and issue-specific attitude polarization, which refers to an increase in the extremity of issue positions in the public. Thus, people move from moderate attitudes toward a certain issue to more extreme and committed positions (Mason, 2013). It is important to distinguish issue-specific polarization from partisan polarization, because an increase in the strength of partisan ideology (e.g., identify as Republican) does not necessarily entail an equivalent increase in the extremity of a political issue position (e.g., oppose Muslim immigration, Mason, 2015).…”

Targeting Ontological Security: Information Warfare in the Modern Age

“…This is particularly true in the United States, where the Internet and social media's increasing prevalence in political discourse and news (Pew Research Center, 2016), coupled with the ideological segregation of social media users (Bakshy, Messing, & Adamic, 2015), inflates perceived discrepancies between national subgroups. Consequently, while American's generally hold "more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest" (Mounk, 2018), ideological cleavages hold increasingly radical perceptions of one another (Mason, 2013), particularly by more avid news consumers (Pew Research Center, 2019b;Yudkin, Hawkins, & Dixon, 2019). However, even less enthusiastic news watchers are increasingly exposed to partisan stories shared by politically active members of their online networks (Lelkes, Sood, & Iyengar, 2017, pp.…”