Together alone: a group-based polarization measurement

Abstract

The growing polarization of our societies and economies has been extensively studied in various disciplines and is subject to public controversy. Yet, measuring polarization is hampered by the discrepancy between how polarization is conceptualized and measured. For instance, the notion of group, especially groups that are identified based on similarities between individuals, is key to conceptualizing polarization but is usually neglected when measuring polarization. To address the issue, this paper presents a new polarization measurement based on a grouping method called “Equal Size Binary Grouping” (ESBG) for both uni- and multi-dimensional discrete data, which satisfies a range of desired properties. Inspired by techniques of clustering, ESBG divides the population into two groups of equal sizes based on similarities between individuals, while overcoming certain theoretical and practical problems afflicting other grouping methods, such as discontinuity and contradiction of reasoning. Our new polarization measurement and the grouping method are illustrated by applying them to a two-dimensional synthetic data set. By means of a so-called “squeezing-and-moving” framework, we show that our measurement is closely related to bipolarization and could help stimulate further empirical research.

A network-based matching design for text mining of hyper-polarised online reviews

“…The application developed an operative definition of polarity which emerged from literature Schoenmueller et al (2020). This definition is slightly different from the parametric characterisation of polarisation as bi-modality prevalent in Psychometrics (Knapp 2007;Pfister et al 2013;Tang et al 2022). As a parametric method, statisticians derive a parameter of overdispersion for a mixture model of the score (Iannario 2014), which in Piccolo and Simone ( 2019) is conceptually equated as a measure of the statistical entropy in the decision making.…”

Exploring Motivated Reasoning in Polarization over the Unfolding 2023 Judicial Reform in Israel

“…To examine polarization, we utilized a group-based approach 78 and identified two campsreflecting support of (pro-reform) and opposition to (anti-reform) the reform. We suggest that difference in views between these camps can motivate biased self-serving perceptions, both of others' position on the reform as well as of the core issue at hand (i.e., understanding of democracy).…”

“…We examined pre-existing differences between these pro-and anti-reform camps in national identity, patriotism, and institutional trust, as well as potentially motivated differences in perceptions between them (i.e., importance of democratic principles, false consensus). We extended the scope of our investigation to three types of polarization-issue-based 78 (i.e., extremity of one's view pro or against the reform), affective 6,83 (i.e., extent of negative emotions towards political opponents), and perceived societal polarization 84 (i.e., extent to which one views society as polarized in general.) Issue-based and affective polarization touch directly on the reform and the resulting pro-and anti-reform camps, whereas perceived societal polarization goes beyond the specific issue at hand.…”

Exploring motivated reasoning in polarization over the unfolding 2023 judicial reform in Israel

“…To examine polarization, we utilized a group-based approach 78 and identified two camps-reflecting support of (pro-reform) and opposition to (anti-reform) the reform. We suggest that difference in views between these camps can motivate biased self-serving perceptions, both of others' position on the reform as well as of the core issue at hand (i.e., understanding of democracy).…”

“…We examined pre-existing differences between these pro-and anti-reform camps in national identity, patriotism, and institutional trust, as well as potentially motivated differences in perceptions between them (i.e., importance of democratic principles, false consensus). We extended the scope of our investigation to three types of polarizationissue-based 78 (i.e., extremity of one's view pro or against the reform), affective 6,83 (i.e., extent of negative emotions towards political opponents), and perceived societal polarization 84 (i.e., extent to which one views society as polarized in general.) Issue-based and affective polarization touch directly on the reform and the resulting pro-and anti-reform camps, whereas perceived societal polarization goes beyond the specific issue at hand.…”