Elite Polarization and Public Opinion: How Polarization Is Communicated and Its Effects

Robison, Joshua; Mullinix, Kevin J.

doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1055526

Cited by 71 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If this is the case, then scholars interested in understanding the nature of partisan motivated reasoning, and particularly its limits, may be better off exploring broader contextual features of the environment such as elite polarization, the nature of a nation’s political institutions and their resulting influence on partisan identities, or the nature of news discourse, than focusing on interpersonal relationships (e.g. Druckman, Peterson, and Slothuus 2013; Lupu 2015; Robison and Mullinix 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Social Disagreement Attenuate Partisan Motivated Reasoning? A Test Case Concerning Economic Evaluations

Robison

2018

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on partisan motivated reasoning shows that citizens perceive the world differently based upon their partisan allegiances. Here we marshal evidence from several national surveys to investigate whether partisan motivated reasoning is attenuated among partisans situated within disagreeable political discussion networks. While our analyses suggest that exposure to interpersonal disagreement is associated with weaker partisan identities, we find limited evidence that disagreement attenuates partisan differences in knowledge or retrospective evaluations of the economy. This suggests that interpersonal disagreement is unlikely to help reduce partisan motivated reasoning. Our results thus speak to important debates concerning the influence of social discussion on political attitudes, the nature of partisan motivated reasoning and the ability of citizens to hold elites accountable.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Social Disagreement Attenuate Partisan Motivated Reasoning? A Test Case Concerning Economic Evaluations

Robison

2018

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 First, when elites are divided along party lines, they provide clearer signals about the parties' positions on a given issue to the mass public (Levendusky 2010;Zaller 1992). Second, elite polarization that emphasizes conflict between competing sides increases the salience of partisan identities (Dancey and Goren 2010;Druckman et al 2013;Iyengar et al 2012;Robison and Mullinix 2015;Slothuus and de Vreese 2010). Dancey and Goren (2010) explain, ''When partisan elites debate an issue and the news media cover it, partisan predispositions are activated'' (686).…”

Section: Partisan Motivated Reasoning and Elite Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Partisanship and Preference Formation: Competing Motivations, Elite Polarization, and Issue Importance

Mullinix

2015

Polit Behav

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An enduring and increasingly acute concern-in an age of polarized parties-is that people's partisan attachments distort preference formation at the expense of relevant information. For example, research suggests that a Democrat may support a policy proposed by Democrats, but oppose the same policy if proposed by Republicans. However, a related body of literature suggests that how people respond to information and form preferences is distorted by their prior issue attitudes. In neither instance is information even-handedly evaluated, rather, it is interpreted in light of partisanship or existing issue opinions. Both effects are well documented in isolation, but in most political scenarios individuals consider both partisanship and prior opinions-yet, these dynamics may or may not pull toward the same preference. Using nationally representative experiments focused on tax and education policies, I introduce and test a theory that isolates when: partisanship dominates preference formation, partisanship and issue opinions reinforce or offset each other, and issue attitudes trump partisanship. The findings make clear that the public does not blindly follow party elites. Depending on elite positions, the level of partisan polarization, and personal importance of issues, the public can be attentive to information and shirk the influence of party elites. The results have broad implications for political parties and citizen competence in contemporary democratic politics.

show abstract

“…Several authors have argued that the diffusion and consumption of disinformation is driven by mechanisms such as “confirmation bias” and “motivated reasoning,” leading people to believe information that confirms their own worldviews (Nickerson 1998; Robison and Mullinix 2015; Shin et al 2017). Furthermore, people tend to believe that the only accurate perception of reality is their own, a phenomenon called “naïve realism” (Ross and Ward 1996).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research

Humprecht

Esser

Aelst

2020

The International Journal of Press/Politics

258

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Online disinformation is considered a major challenge for modern democracies. It is widely understood as misleading content produced to generate profits, pursue political goals, or maliciously deceive. Our starting point is the assumption that some countries are more resilient to online disinformation than others. To understand what conditions influence this resilience, we choose a comparative cross-national approach. In the first step, we develop a theoretical framework that presents these country conditions as theoretical dimensions. In the second step, we translate the dimensions into quantifiable indicators that allow us to measure their significance on a comparative cross-country basis. In the third part of the study, we empirically examine eighteen Western democracies. A cluster analysis yields three country groups: one group with high resilience to online disinformation (including the Northern European systems, for instance) and two country groups with low resilience (including the polarized Southern European countries and the United States). In the final part, we discuss the heuristic value of the framework for comparative political communication research in the age of information pollution.

show abstract

Elite Polarization and Public Opinion: How Polarization Is Communicated and Its Effects

Cited by 71 publications

References 63 publications

Does Social Disagreement Attenuate Partisan Motivated Reasoning? A Test Case Concerning Economic Evaluations

Does Social Disagreement Attenuate Partisan Motivated Reasoning? A Test Case Concerning Economic Evaluations

Partisanship and Preference Formation: Competing Motivations, Elite Polarization, and Issue Importance

Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About