Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polarisierung

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Politische Kommunikation

Zusammenfassung

Wann können sich politische Einstellungen durch verschiedene Formen der politischen Kommunikation verstärken oder in eine extreme Richtung verändern? Unter welchen Umständen können politische Haltungen so stark mit einem Gruppengefühl einhergehen, dass eine Wir-gegen-Sie-Mentalität daraus erwächst? All diese Fragen berühren das Phänomen der politischen Polarisierung. In diesem Beitrag werden zunächst unterschiedliche Konzeptualisierungen von politischer Polarisierung präsentiert, um anschließend dieses Phänomen aus psychologischer und kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Sicht zu erklären. Dabei wird der empirische Forschungsstand nicht nur in Hinblick auf die Rolle journalistischer Nachrichtenmedien, sondern auch mit einem Fokus auf soziale Medien zusammengefasst.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Je nach Fokus wird in der Literatur unter „ideological polarization“ auch die Polarisierung im Sinne der ideologischen Orientierung (z. B. konservativ vs. liberal; Lee et al. 2014) verstanden. Für eine ausführliche Beschreibung der verschiedenen Definitionen von Polarisierung und deren Bedeutung zur Bewertung, ob und wie sich Polarisierung manifestiert, siehe Lelkes 2016 oder Mason 2013.

  2. 2.

    Abzugrenzen ist die themenbezogene Polarisierung vom Konzept des Extremismus, der nicht nur extreme politische Einstellungen oder Ideologien meint, sondern ebenfalls die Ablehnung des demokratischen Staates und die Bereitschaft, ihn und seine Werte abzuschaffen (Kailitz 2004).

Literatur

  • Arceneaux, Kevin, Martin Johnson, und Chad Murphy. 2012. Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics 74(1): 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100123X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bail, Christopher A., Lisa P. Argyle, Taylor W. Brown, John P. Bumpus, Haohan Chen, M. B. Fallin Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, und Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(37): 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakshy, Eytan, Solomon Messing, und Lada A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239): 1130–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberá, Pablo. 2014. How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. Job Market Paper 46. New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, Roy F., und Mark R. Leary. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beam, Michael A., Myiah J. Hutchens, und Jay D. Hmielowski. 2018. Facebook news and (de) polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society 21(7): 940–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, Dan, Stefan Krasa, und Mattias Polborn. 2008. Political polarization and the electoral effects of media bias. Journal of Public Economics 92(5–6): 1092–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, Andrew R., Kajsa E. Dalrymple, Dominique Brossard, und Dietram A. Scheufele. 2009. The soul of a polarized democracy: Testing theoretical linkages between talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election. Communication Research 36(3): 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, Bill. 2008. The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. 1st Mariner Books ed. Boston: Mariner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutyline, Andrei, und Robb Willer. 2017. The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks: Political echo chambers. Political Psychology 38(3): 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, Axel. 2019. Are filter bubbles real? Digital futures. Cambridge, UK/Medford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budak, Ceren, Sharad Goel, und Justin M. Rao. 2016. Fair and balanced? Quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 250–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargnino, Manuel, und German Neubaum. 2020. Are we deliberately captivated in homogeneous cocoons? An investigation on political tie building on Facebook. Mass Communication and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1805632.

  • Carothers, Thomas, und Andrew O’Donohue. 2019. Democracies divided: The global challenge of political polarization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, Sedona, P. Sol Hart, und Stuart Soroka. 2020. Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985–2017. Science Communication 42(1): 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colleoni, Elanor, Alessandro Rozza, und Adam Arvidsson. 2014. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data: Political homophily on Twitter. Journal of Communication 64(2): 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, Peter M., Adam Shehata, und Jesper Strömbäck. 2019. Reinforcing spirals at work? Mutual influences between selective news exposure and ideological leaning. European Journal of Communication 34(2): 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Morton, und Harold B. Gerard. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51(3): 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, James N., und Matthew S. Levendusky. 2019. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly 83(1): 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dvir-Gvirsman, Shira. 2017. Media audience homophily: Partisan websites, audience identity and polarization processes. New Media & Society 19(7): 1072–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dvir-Gvirsman, Shira, Yariv Tsfati, und Ericka Menchen-Trevino. 2016. The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli elections. New Media & Society 18(5): 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyssel, Jana, Daniel Geschke, und Wolfgang Frindte. 2015. Is seeing believing? The relationship between TV consumption and Islamophobia in German majority society. Journal of Media Psychology 27(4): 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Lauren, Teresa A. Myers, Jay D. Hmielowski, und Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: Testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. Journal of Communication 64(4): 590–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, Leon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance, Bd. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R. Kelly, Shira Dvir Gvirsman, Benjamin K. Johnson, Yariv Tsfati, Rachel Neo, und Aysenur Dal. 2014. Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization: Partisan media exposure and affective polarization. Human Communication Research 40(3): 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Jiyoung, und Christopher M. Federico. 2017. Conflict-framed news, self-categorization, and Partisan polarization. Mass Communication and Society 20(4): 455–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1292530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Jiyoung, und Christopher M. Federico. 2018. The polarizing effect of news framing: Comparing the mediating roles of motivated reasoning, self-stereotyping, and intergroup animus. Journal of Communication 68(4): 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Jiyoung, und Marco Yzer. 2020. Media-induced misperception further divides public opinion: A test of self-categorization theory of attitude polarization. Journal of Media Psychology 32(2): 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmielowski, Jay D., Myiah J. Hutchens, und Michael A. Beam. 2020. Asymmetry of Partisan media effects? Examining the reinforcing process of conservative and liberal media with political beliefs. Political Communication, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1763525.

  • Hogg, Michael A., und Scott A. Reid. 2006. Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory 16(1): 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, Robert, Jeanette Morehouse Mendez, und Tracy Osborn. 2004. Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology 25(1): 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchens, Myiah J., Jay D. Hmielowski, und Michael A. Beam. 2019. Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Communication Monographs 86(3): 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyun, Ki Deuk, und Soo Jung Moon. 2016. Agenda setting in the Partisan TV news context: Attribute agenda setting and polarized evaluation of presidential candidates among viewers of NBC, CNN, and Fox News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 93(3): 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016628820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, Shanto, und Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59(1): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, und Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. Affect, not ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, Shanto, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky, Neil Malhotra, und Sean J. Westwood. 2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1): 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kailitz, Steffen. 2004. Politischer Extremismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: eine Einführung, 1. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, Jonas, und Cornelius Puschmann. 2017. Alliance of antagonism: Counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication. Communication and the Public 2(4): 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317732350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Yonghwan. 2015. Does disagreement mitigate polarization? How selective exposure and disagreement affect political polarization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 92(4): 915–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015596328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klar, Samara, Yanna Krupnikov, und John Barry Ryan. 2018. Affective polarization or Partisan disdain? Public Opinion Quarterly 82(2): 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingeren, Marijn van, Hajo G. Boomgaarden, und Claes H. de Vreese. 2017. Will conflict tear us apart? The effects of conflict and valenced media messages on polarizing attitudes toward EU immigration and border control. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(2): 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw051.

  • Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia. 2015. Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective exposure theory and research. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Jae Kook, Jihyang Choi, Cheonsoo Kim, und Yonghwan Kim. 2014. Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication 64(4): 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Jiyoung, und Yunjung Choi. 2020. Effects of network heterogeneity on social media on opinion polarization among South Koreans: Focusing on fear and political orientation. International Communication Gazette 82(2): 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518820499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lelkes, Yphtach. 2016. Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, Matthew, und Neil Malhotra. 2016. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication 33(2): 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Yanqin, und Jae Kook Lee. 2019. Stumbling upon the other side: Incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society 21(1): 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818793421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Lilliana. 2013. The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist 57(1): 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Lilliana. 2015. „I disrespectfully agree“: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization: Partisan sorting and polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Lilliana. 2016. A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1): 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, und Howard Rosenthal. 2016. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, und James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mummolo, Jonathan, und Clayton Nall. 2017. Why Partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics 79(1): 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1086/687569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, German, und Nicole C. Krämer. 2017. Opinion climates in social media: Blending mass and interpersonal communication: Opinion climates in social media. Human Communication Research 43(4): 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, German, Manuel Cargnino, Stephan Winter, und Shira Dvir Gvirsman. 2021. „You’re still worth it“ – The moral and relational context of politically motivated unfriending decisions in online networks. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243049.

  • Niedermayer, Oskar. 2009. Gesellschaftliche und parteipolitische Konfliktlinien. In Wähler in Deutschland, Hrsg. S. Kühnel, O. Niedermayer und B. Westle, 30–67. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91661-3_2.

  • Pariser, Eli. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, Markus. 2013. Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16(1): 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röchert, Daniel, German Neubaum, Björn Ross, Florian Brachten, und Stefan Stieglitz. 2020a. Opinion-based homogeneity on YouTube: Combining sentiment and social network analysis. Computational Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/gk5b7. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2020.1.004.ROCH.

  • Röchert, Daniel, German Neubaum, Björn Ross, und Stefan Stieglitz. 2020b. Caught in a networked complot? Analyzing homogeneity in conspiracy-related discussion networks on YouTube. Vortrag auf der Jahrestagung der International Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogowski, Jon C., und Joseph L. Sutherland. 2016. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior 38(2): 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schemer, Christian, Stefan Geiss, und Philipp Müller. 2019. Applying the reinforcing spirals model to dynamic communication phenomena: Conceptual and statistical pitfalls. In Dynamische Prozesse der öffentlichen Kommunikation – Methodische Herausforderungen, Hrsg. Phillip von Müller, Stefan Geiss, Christian Schemer, Teresa K. Naab und Christina Peter, 262–285. Köln: Herbert von Halem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Michael D. 2007. Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory 17(3): 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Michael D. 2015. Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology 18(3): 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.897236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2010. Polarization and Partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication 60(3): 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, Charles S., und Milton Lodge. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, Henri, und John C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations, Hrsg. J. A. von Williams und Stephen Worchel, 33–47. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepte, Sabine, und Laura Loy. 2017. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In The international encyclopedia of media effects, Hrsg. P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner und L. van Zoonen, 1832–1845. Malten: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.

  • Trilling, Damian, Marijn van Klingeren, und Yariv Tsfati. 2016. Selective exposure, political polarization, and possible mediators: Evidence from the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, edw003. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw003.

  • Tsfati, Yariv, und Adi Chotiner. 2016. Testing the selective exposure–polarization hypothesis in Israel using three indicators of ideological news exposure and testing for mediating mechanisms. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28(1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edv001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, Joshua, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barbera, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, und Brendan Nyhan. 2018. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139.

  • Turner, John C. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations 1(2): 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, John C. 1991. Social influence. Pacific grove: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Christopher, und Samara Klar. 2019. Exploring the psychological foundations of ideological and social sorting. Political Psychology 40(S1): 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Steven W., und Alan I. Abramowitz. 2017. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research 45(4): 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17703132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Brian E., Thomas B. Ksiazek, und R. Lance Holbert. 2016. Partisan enclaves or shared media experiences? A network approach to understanding citizens’ political news environments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 60(2): 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1164170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojcieszak, Magdalena, und R. Kelly Garrett. 2018. Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: How priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Human Communication Research 44(3): 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wojcieszak, Magdalena, und Benjamin R. Warner. 2020. „Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact“. Political Communication 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406.

  • Yarchi, Moran, Christian Baden, und Neta Kligler-Vilenchik. 2020. Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067.

  • Zillmann, Dolf, und Jennings Bryant. 1985. Selective exposure phenomena. In Selective exposure to communication, Hrsg. D. Zillmann und Jennings Bryant, 1–10. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Deutschland

    German Neubaum

Authors
  1. German Neubaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to German Neubaum .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Isabelle Borucki

  2. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw

  3. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Stefan Marschall

  4. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany

    Thomas Zerback

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Neubaum, G. (2021). Polarisierung. In: Borucki, I., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., Marschall, S., Zerback, T. (eds) Handbuch Politische Kommunikation. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_57-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_57-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26242-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26242-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation