Abating Dissonant Public Spheres: Exploring the Effects of Affective, Ideological and Perceived Societal Political Polarization on Social Media Political Persuasion

References

• AAPOR. 2016. Standard definitions. Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys.
   Google Scholar
• Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 116–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahler, D. J. (2014). Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381614000085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Yu, C. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6(2), 205316801984855. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019848554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armaly, M. T., & Enders, A. M. (2021). The role of affective orientations in promoting perceived polarization. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.24
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachmann, I., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013). News platform preference as a predictor of political and civic participation. Convergence, 19(4), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856513493699
   Google Scholar
• Baker, R. E. G., Blumberg, S. J., Brick, J. M., Couper, M. P., Courtright, M., Dennis, J. M., Dillman, D. O. N., Frankel, M. R., Garland, P., Groves, R. M., Kennedy, C., Krosnick, J. O. N., Lavrakas, P. J., Lee, S., Link, M., Piekarski, L., Rao, K., Thomas, R. K., & Zahs, D. A. N. (2010). Aapor Report On Online Panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(4), 711–781. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barberá, P. (2015). How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. Paper presented at the 2015 American political science association conference, San Francisco, California.
   Google Scholar
• Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker, D. C., & Lawrence, A. B. (2006). Media favoritism and presidential nominations: Reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication, 23(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600500477013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Diehl, T. (2017). Second screening and political persuasion on social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(2), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1309416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisbee, J., & Larson, J. M. (2017). Testing social science network theories with online network data: An evaluation of external validity. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L., & Vraga, E. K. (2015). In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior: Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casero-Ripollés, A., Feenstra, R. A., & Tormey, S. (2016). Old and new media logics in an electoral campaign: The case of podemos and the two-way street mediatization of politics. The International Journal of press/politics, 21(3), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216645340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In DT Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.,Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewan, T., Humphreys, M., & Rubenson, D. (2014). The elements of political persuasion: Content, charisma and cue. The Economic Journal, 124(574), F257–F292. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diehl, T., Weeks, B. E., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1875–1895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enders, A. M., & Armaly, M. T. (2019). The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior, 41(3), 815–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdinand, P. (2000). The internet, democracy and democratization. 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340008403642
   Google Scholar
• Freyburg, T. (2018). Blocking the bottleneck: Internet shutdowns and ownership at election times in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Communication, 12, 3896–3916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K., Gvirsman, S. D., Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskins, B., & Jerit, J. (2012). Internet news: Is it a replacement for traditional media outlets? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211434640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020). American affective polarization in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914123
   Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Casero-Ripollés, A. (2021). WhatsApp political discussion, conventional participation and activism: Exploring direct, indirect and generational effects. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1642933
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., Barnidge, M., & Diehl, T. (2018). Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning. The Information Society, 34(5), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1497743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., González-González, P., & Goyanes, M. (2022). Pathways to Political Persuasion: Linking Online. Social Media, and Fake News with Political Attitude Change Through Political Discussion. American Behavioral Scientist, 0(0).
   Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Goyanes, M. (2021). Fueling civil disobedience in democracy: WhatsApp news use, political knowledge, and illegal political protest. New Media & Society, 0(0).
   Google Scholar
• Groshek, J. (2009). The democratic effects of the internet, 1994—2003. International Communication Gazette, 71(3), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048508100909
   Google Scholar
• Huckfeldt, R., Pietryka, M. T., & Reilly, J. (2014). Noise, bias, and expertise in political communication networks. Social Networks, 36, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Konitzer, T., & Tedin, K. (2018). The home as a political fortress: Family agreement in an era of polarization. Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1326–1338. https://doi.org/10.1086/698929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal Influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). (Mis) perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilleker, D. G., Koc-Michalska, K., Schweitzer, E. J., Jacunski, M., Jackson, N., & Vedel, T. (2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111416182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCoy, J., & Somer, M. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 225–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosco, V. (2019). Social media versus journalism and democracy. Journalism, 20(1), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918807611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C., Sniderman, P. M., & Brody, R. A. (Eds.). (1996). Political persuasion and attitude change. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (1996). Persuasion and democracy: Strategies for increasing deliberative participation and enacting social change. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01369.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robison, J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2016). Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1055526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016). How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior, 38(2), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheffauer, R., Goyanes, M., & Gil de Zúniga, H. (2021). Beyond social media news use algorithms: How political discussion and network heterogeneity clarify incidental news exposure. Online Information Review, 45(3), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2020-0133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shahin, S., Saldaña, M., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2021). Peripheral elaboration model: The impact of incidental news exposure on political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 18(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1832012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2018). # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torcal, M., & Maldonado, G. (2014). Revisiting the dark side of political deliberation: The effects of media and political discussion on political interest. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3), 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Törnberg, P. (2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0203958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of computer-mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., Katz, J. E., & Miranda, J. P. (2019). The paradox of participation versus misinformation: Social media, political engagement, and the spread of misinformation. Digital Journalism, 7(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and Quantity, 40(3), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8081-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17703132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, B. E., Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(2), 214–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edv050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks, B. E., Lane, D. S., Hee Kim, D., Lee, S. S., & Kwak, N. (2017, November). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 539–570. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 145–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12(1), 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar