2004
Volume 96, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

Political polarization has been identified as a key societal risk of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While various actors have expressed concern about extreme single-issue opinions, mass polarization may be characterized better as increasing association between various opinions. This could lead to deepening cleavages as new issues arise.

We thus describe opinions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic relative to pre-existing mass opinion structures. We review the science on polarization, ultimately focusing on the Netherlands specifically. Using survey data of Dutch social media users (N = 216), we find that opinion clustering on general political issues is loose, and that these clusters do not uniformly predict attitudes towards measures to combat consequences of COVID-19. Nevertheless, the found clusters are better predictors than ideological identification. These results stress the importance of conceptualizing polarization as multi-attitudinal clustering rather than as unidimensional opinion difference.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.2.003.KEIJ
2021-05-01
2021-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00259454/96/2/03_MEM2021.2_KEIJ.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.2.003.KEIJ&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Achterberg, P.(2006). Het einde van links en rechts: realiteit of populaire mythe?Mens & Maatschappij, 81(1), 51-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adema, Y., Zulkarnain, A. & Berge, W. van den.(2020). Langdurige effecten van de coronacrisis voor de arbeidsmarkt (pp. 1-14). Den Haag: Centraal Planbureau.
  3. Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L.A.(2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baldassarri, D. & Bearman, P.(2007). Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784-811.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baldassarri, D. & Gelman, A.(2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408-446.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Banisch, S. & Olbrich, E.(2019). An argument communication model of polarization and ideological alignment. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06134.
  7. Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Berger, W., Sack, G. & Flocken, C.(2016). Disambiguation of social polarization concepts and measures. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(2), 80-111.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruns, A.(2019). Are filter bubbles real? (p. 144). Cambridge: Polity Press.
  9. Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., Niknafs, A. & Charrad, M. M.(2014). Package ‘nbclust.’Journal of Statistical Software, 61, 1-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Klerk, M., Olsthoorn, M., Plaisier, I., Schaper, J. & Wagemans, F.(2021). Een jaar met Corona. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
  11. Dekker, P. & Den Ridder, J.(2014). Polariseert Nederland? Ontwikkelingen in politiek-culturele tegenstellingen. In M.Bovens, P.Dekker, & W.Tiemeijer (Eds.), Gescheiden werelden? Een verkenning van sociaal-culturele tegenstellingen in Nederland (pp. 103-129). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau & Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dekker, P. & Den Ridder, J.(2019). Continu Onderzoek Burgerperspectieven 2019 | 1. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
  13. Den Ridder, J., Miltenburg, E., Steenvoorden, E., Van der Meer, T. & Dekker, P.(2020). Continu Onderzoek Burgerperspectieven 2020 | 4. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
  14. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J. & Bryson, B.(1996). Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690-755.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Druckman, J.N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J.B.(2020). Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 28-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Druckman, J.N., Peterson, E. & Slothuus, R.(2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation.American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Elmer, T., Mepham, K. & Stadtfeld, C.(2020). Students under lockdown: Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and during the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PLoS ONE, 15(7 July), 1-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Esteban, B.Y.J. & Ray, D.(1994). On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica, 62(4), 819-851.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, J. H.(2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized? – An update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 71-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiorina, M.P. & Abrams, S.J.(2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563-588.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S. & Lorenz, J.(2017). Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4), 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Green, J., Edgerton, J., Naftel, D., Shoub, K. & Cranmer, S. J.(2020). Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6(28), 1-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Habermas, J.(1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  24. Hart, P.S., Chinn, S. & Soroka, S.(2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication, 42(5), 679-697.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hartigan, J.A. & Wong, M.A.(1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 28(1), 100-108.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hetherington, M.J.(2009). Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 413-448.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. I&O Research & NOS. (2020). Coronacrisis: Bereidheid tot vaccineren (p. 12).
  28. Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K. S.(2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-U6.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jager, W. & Amblard, F.(2005). Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(4), 295-303.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jiang, J., Chen, E., Yan, S., Lerman, K. & Ferrara, E.(2020). Political polarization drives online conversations about COVID-19 in the United States. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 200-211.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Keijzer, M.A. & Mäs, M. (ter perse). The complex link between filter bubbles and opinion polarization. Data Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Keijzer, M.A., Mäs, M. & Flache, A.(2018). Communication in online social networks fosters cultural isolation. Complexity, 9502872.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Klein, E.(2020). Why we’re polarized. New York: Simon; Schuster.
  34. KoningWillem-Alexander.(2020). Kersttoespraak van de koning, 25 december 2020.
  35. Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N. & Caan, W.(2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health, 152, 157-171.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J.M.(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Miltenburg, E. & Schaper, J.(2020). Verwachte gevolgen van corona voor de opvattingen en houdingen van Nederlanders (p. 25). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
  38. Möller, J., Velde, R.N. van de, Merten, L. & Puschmann, C.(2019). Explaining online news engagement based on browsing behavior: Creatures of habit?Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 616-632.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid. (2020). Dreigingsbeeld terrorisme Nederland 53. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid.
  40. Oosterwaal, A.(2017). Polarisatie in de Nederlandse samenleving en politiek: het integratiebeleid. Mens & Maatschappij, 84(4), 369-392.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pariser, E.(2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
  42. Pfefferbaum, B. & North, C. S.(2020). Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 383, 510-512.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Reiljan, A.(2020). ‘Fear and loathing across party lines’(also) in Europe: Affective polarization in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research, 59(2), 376-396.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rooduijn, M. & Burgoon, B.(2018). The paradox of well-being: Do unfavorable socioeconomic and sociocultural contexts deepen or dampen radical left and right voting among the less well-off?Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1720-1753.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rousseeuw, P.J.(1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Slothuus, R. & Bisgaard, M.(2020). How political parties shape public opinion in the real world. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12550
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Van der Meer, T.(2017). De verkiezingen van 2017 in meerjarig perspectief. In T.van der Meer, H.van der Kolk, & R.Rekker (Eds.), Aanhoudend wisselvallig: Nationaal kiezersonderzoek 2017 (pp. 10-21). Leiden: Stichting KiezersOnderzoek Nederland.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Oudenhoven, J.P.(2009). Polarisatie in debat, convergentie in de samenleving. In Polarisatie: Bedreigend en verrijkend (pp. 216-234). Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, A.E., Parker, V. & Feinberg, M.(2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223-228.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Winkler, H.(2019). The effect of income inequality on political polarization: Evidence from European regions, 2002-2014. Economics and Politics, 31(2), 137-162.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.2.003.KEIJ
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.2.003.KEIJ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): COVID-19; ideological segregation; opinions; polarization; social media

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error