The Intertwined Threat of Polarization and Problematic Information to Democracy
The past decade has witnessed a series of tumultuous events, from Brexit and the Trump presidency to the Capitol Hill attack and the COVID-19 pandemic, which have profoundly impacted global politics and societies. These events have also highlighted two critical threats to the health of democracies: political polarization and the proliferation of problematic information. While these phenomena are not new, their convergence in the digital age presents unprecedented challenges to democratic processes and institutions. This article examines the existing research on the relationship between political polarization and problematic information, exploring definitions, contexts, methodologies, findings, and limitations in the current literature.
Defining political polarization and problematic information is inherently complex due to their multifaceted nature. Political polarization can manifest in various forms, including divergence (extremism and hyper-partisanship), consistency (alignment of positions across multiple issues), affective polarization (negative emotions towards out-groups), and perceived polarization (belief in a polarized system). Similarly, problematic information encompasses a range of misleading and harmful content, including disinformation, misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories, rumors, and propaganda. The lack of consistent definitions and measures across studies complicates efforts to compare and synthesize research findings. The existing literature primarily focuses on polarization as divergence, particularly in the context of the United States, where the rise of the far-right and asymmetric polarization have been prominent research topics. Similarly, studies tend to operationalize problematic information based on specific examples or datasets rather than providing robust theoretical frameworks.
The majority of research on the intersection of political polarization and problematic information has been conducted in Western countries, particularly the United States. This geographic bias limits the generalizability of findings and underscores the need for research in diverse cultural and political contexts. Most studies employ quantitative methods, primarily surveys and experiments, focusing on individual-level analysis. This emphasis on micro-level research often overlooks the meso and macro level dynamics of polarization and information dissemination, including the role of political elites, media organizations, and platform algorithms. The over-reliance on cross-sectional studies restricts insights into causal relationships, while the limited use of qualitative methods like interviews and ethnography hinders in-depth understanding of individuals’ motivations and behaviors. Additionally, most research has centered on established social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, neglecting the growing influence of other platforms, such as Instagram, TikTok, and instant messaging services.
A significant body of research suggests a positive association between political polarization and problematic information. The direction of causality, however, remains a subject of debate. Some studies suggest that polarization predisposes individuals to seek out and believe in problematic information that confirms their pre-existing views, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. Other research indicates that exposure to problematic information can exacerbate polarization by reinforcing extreme attitudes and fostering distrust in mainstream institutions. The lack of longitudinal research designs and the ambiguous operationalization of key concepts make it challenging to draw definitive conclusions about causal relationships. Longitudinal studies, particularly those conducted during times of crisis and focusing on multiple platforms and media sources, are essential for understanding the complex interplay between these phenomena.
The reviewed studies have several limitations that future research should address. Many studies lack explicit theoretical frameworks and rely on vague definitions of polarization and problematic information, hindering comparability and replicability. The overreliance on U.S. samples and established social media platforms limits the generalizability of findings. The scarcity of longitudinal and qualitative research restricts insights into the causal dynamics and underlying motivations behind the relationship between polarization and problematic information. Furthermore, limited attention has been paid to the impact of platform moderation efforts and individual fact-checking behaviors on the interplay of these phenomena.
Addressing these limitations requires a multi-pronged approach. Future research should prioritize developing robust theoretical frameworks that clearly define and operationalize key concepts. Studies should expand beyond Western contexts and examine the role of diverse media environments and platforms in shaping the relationship between polarization and problematic information. Longitudinal research designs are crucial for understanding causal relationships, while qualitative methods can provide valuable insights into individuals’ motivations and beliefs. Moreover, research should investigate the impact of misinformation mitigation strategies and corrective actions on mitigating polarization.
In conclusion, while the existing literature provides a starting point for understanding the complex relationship between political polarization and problematic information, there are significant gaps in our knowledge. The convergence of these phenomena in the digital age poses a serious threat to democratic societies. Filling these gaps requires a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates rigorous methodologies, diverse perspectives, and a focus on practical solutions. By enhancing our understanding of this complex interplay, researchers can contribute to developing effective strategies for mitigating polarization, combating misinformation, and strengthening democratic resilience.