The polarization of American political attitudes under George W. Bush was often cited by pundits and commentators throughout his two terms in office. But were public attitudes truly polarized during that period? And, more importantly, did everyday interactions between citizens make the problem worse? A new study by students and faculty in Life Sciences Communication suggests that the answer to both questions is yes.The study, led by doctoral student Andrew R. Binder, demonstrates that the more often citizens discussed political matters with people who already agreed with them, the more extreme their attitudes became over the course of the 2004 presidential election. Focusing on public attitudes toward stem cell research, the study also highlights the blurring lines between scientific and political issues during Bush's tenure. Co-authored with Kajsa E. Dalrymple, Dominique Brossard, and Dietram A. Scheufele, the article has just appeared in print in the June issue of the journal Communication Research.
From the article's abstract:
This study explores the relationships between discussion networks and the development of extreme attitudes toward stem cell research during the 2004 presidential election. The authors test competing theoretical models that address discrepancies in previous attitude polarization research—whether interpersonal discussion leads to attitude extremity or extremity leads to discussion, within the deliberating American public. Using data from a nationwide mail panel survey carried out between 2002 and 2005, the authors explore within-wave and between-wave causal paths, revealing patterns difficult to discern in cross-sectional survey or lab experimental designs. Our findings show that political talk plays a substantial role in shaping and polarizing attitudes on stem cell research, with discussion in networks composed of like-minded others leading directly to the development of extreme attitudes.
