Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e74516.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074516. eCollection 2013.

Differentiation without distancing. explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence

Michael Mäs  1 , Andreas Flache
Affiliations

Differentiation without distancing. explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence

Michael Mäs et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Explanations of opinion bi-polarization hinge on the assumption of negative influence, individuals' striving to amplify differences to disliked others. However, empirical evidence for negative influence is inconclusive, which motivated us to search for an alternative explanation. Here, we demonstrate that bi-polarization can be explained without negative influence, drawing on theories that emphasize the communication of arguments as central mechanism of influence. Due to homophily, actors interact mainly with others whose arguments will intensify existing tendencies for or against the issue at stake. We develop an agent-based model of this theory and compare its implications to those of existing social-influence models, deriving testable hypotheses about the conditions of bi-polarization. Hypotheses were tested with a group-discussion experiment (N = 96). Results demonstrate that argument exchange can entail bi-polarization even when there is no negative influence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ideal-typical dynamics generated by existing models of social influence.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bi-polarization generated by argument exchange and homophily (N = 100, P = C = 30, S = 10, h = 9).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from simulation experiment on the effects of homophily on the degree of bi-polarization (500 runs per condition, N = 20, P = C = 20, S = 6).
Figure 4
Figure 4. Predictions of existing social-influence models (left panel) and results of the experiment (right panel).
Figure 5
Figure 5. Predictions of ACTB (left panel) and results of the experiment (right panel).
Figure 6
Figure 6. Dynamics found under the Opinions-and-arguments-condition.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bourdieu P (1984[1979]) Distinction: A social critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    1. Mark NP (2003) Culture and Competition: Homophily and Distancing Explanations for Cultural Niches. Am Sociol Rev 68: 319–345.
    1. Elias N (1969[1939]) The Civilizing Process, Vol.I. The History of Manners. Oxford: Blackwell.
    1. Tajfel H (1981) Human groups and social categories. Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne and Syndey: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Baldassarri D, Bearman P (2007) Dynamics of political polarization. Am Sociol Rev 72: 784–811.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources