Suchergebnisse

Replik auf Jack Halperns Artikel über die Polarisierung in Rhodesien (The World Today, 27 (1971) 1. S. 1-8). (DÜI-Ker)

Social networks can be a very successful tool to engage users to discuss relevant topics for society. However, there are also some dangers that are associated with them, such as the emergence of polarization in online discussions. Recently, there has been a growing interest to try to understand this phenomenon, as some consider that this can be harmful concerning the building of a healthy society in which citizens get used to polite discussions and even listening to opinions that may be different from theirs. In this work, we face the problem of defining a precise measure that can quantify in a meaningful way the level of polarization present in an online discussion. We focus on the Reddit social network, given that its primary focus is to foster discussions, in contrast to other social networks that have some other uses. Our measure is based on two different characteristics of an online discussion: the existence of a balanced bipartition of the users of the discussion, where one partition contains mainly users in agreement (regarding the topic of the discussion) and the other users in disagreement, and the degree of negativity of the sentiment of the interactions between these two groups of users. We discuss how different characteristics of the discussions affect the value of our polarization measure, and we finally perform an empirical evaluation over different sets of Reddit discussions about diverse classes of topics. Our results seem to indicate that our measure can capture differences in the polarization level of different discussions, which can be further understood when analyzing the values of the different factors used to define the measure. ; This research was funded by Spanish Project PID2019-111544GB-C22 (MINECO/FEDER), by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreements 723596, 768824, 764025 and 814945, and by 2017 SGR 1537.

Scientists cannot take a neutral position regarding the way progress evolves. The environment, social justice and international order are the key factors for constructing peace.

AbstractThis study analyzes the link between egalitarian ideals and the rise in party polarization in Congress. To demonstrate how philosophical differences over conceptions of fairness, equality, and justice help explain the recent growth in partisanship over the past few decades, I argue one overlooked explanatory factor which assists in capturing this ideological rift is noncontributory welfare spending. Recovering annual ideal point estimates between 1947 and 2018 that are comparable with annual federal spending, I use multivariate time series models and find convincing evidence which suggests welfare outlays have a strong short- and long-run effect on polarization. Moreover, analysis of the roll call record also shows when ideal point estimates are recovered by specific policy area, lawmakers exhibit higher levels of ideological separation on welfare compared to, among others, policies such as defense and transportation. Robustness checks confirm these findings also hold even when controlling for income inequality.

In spite of growing concerns about political extremism, no adequate measure exists to empirically test the character of political attitudes. The purpose of this study was to develop a measurement of political attitude extremism and, using this measure, assess the communication phenomena that contribute to political extremism. To this end, two surveys were distributed to a total of 504 participants (316 for Study 1 and 188 for Study 2). Study 1 assessed the properties of political attitude extremism. The second study used the measure developed in Study 1 to determine the extent to which media habits, homogeneity of social networks, partisan polarization, political information efficacy, political talk, and moral certainty contribute to political attitude extremism. Study 1 found that liberal attitude extremism and conservative attitude extremism are not opposite ends of the same spectrum but rather are distinct variables with unique measurement properties. Furthermore, conservative attitude extremism must be subdivided into fiscal conservative extremism and social conservative extremism, while liberalism did not require such a division. Study 2 found that these three extremism variables (liberal attitude extremism, social conservative attitude extremism, fiscal conservative attitude extremism) behave differently relative to the communication phenomenon examined. Specifically, ideological media use and political talk significantly predicted liberal attitude extremism, homogeneity of social network and partisan polarization significantly predicted social conservative attitude extremism, and partisan polarization and political information efficacy significantly predicted fiscal conservative attitude extremism. These findings demonstrate that scholarship must consider attitude extremism as multifaceted and must adjust theory accordingly. The new measurement tools provided by this study represent a significant advancement in the empirical study of political extremism.