Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

How language divides

Asymmetries in the differentiating power of opinion discourse

Dados Bibliográficos

ID22878659
AutoresK Durrheim (0000-0003-2926-5953, University of Johannesburg, autor correspondente), D Morselli (0000-0002-1490-9691, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine), Maria Schuld (0000-0001-8626-168X, University of Johannesburg), Martin Mafunda (0000-0001-9008-5834, Durban University of Technology), Martin Canaan Mafunda (MartDat Analytics Pvt Ltd Durban South Africa), Andres Martinez Torres (0009-0004-7690-5225, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine), Maite Beramendi (Institute of Social Science University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland), M Maite Beramendi (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Michael Quayle (0000-0002-7497-0566, University of Limerick), Melody Sepahpour‐Fard (Department of Psychology University of Limerick Limerick Ireland), Melody Sepahpour Fard (0000-0002-8472-9514, University of Limerick), Nnaemeka Ohamadike (0000-0002-8633-8103, University of Johannesburg)
Ano2026
Volume47
Fascículo4
Data de publicação2026-08-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPolitical Psychology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0162-895X • E-ISSN: 1467-9221
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/pops.70171
OpenAlexW7166710995
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas60

Polarization is typically conceptualized as increasing distance between opposing attitudes. We argue instead that it unfolds through asymmetries in the group‐differentiating power of opinion language. In public discourse, actors use distinctive linguistic repertoires to signal alignment, mark boundaries, and render opinion landscapes intelligible. Conventional attitude scales estimate the distributions of private belief but cannot capture how these boundaries are enacted in expression or how normative asymmetries shape the visibility of positions. Across three studies of vaccination discourse in South Africa and the United States, combining human coding with machine learning models of natural language, we examine how majority and minority opinions differ in their capacity to differentiate social groups. Consistent with Moscovici's theory of minority influence, minority discourse became more linguistically distinctive—and more effective at separating communities—under politicized conditions, whereas majority discourse was more dispersed and aligned with institutional reporting. In both contexts, linguistic proximity to opinion poles was associated with heightened anger. These findings suggest that polarization is not only divergence in belief but also an asymmetrical process of boundary construction enacted through language.

Discourse analysis · Divergence (linguistics) · Motivated reasoning · Normative · Polarization (electrochemistry) · Power (physics) · Public opinion · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Multilingual Education and Policy · Populism, Right-Wing Movements

  • The Partisan Sort

    Matthew Levendusky•Partisan Sort•2009

  • Asymmetric Politics

    Matthew Grossmann, Matt Grossman et al.•Asymmetric politics•2016

  • How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks

    Open Access•William J Brady, Killian Lorcan Mcloughlin et al.•Science Advances•2021

  • Studies of independence and conformity

    Solomon E Asch•The Psychological Monographs•1956

  • Putting the affect into affective polarisation

    Open Access•Bert N Bakker, Yphtach Lelkes•Cognition & Emotion•2024

  • The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media

    Open Access•Luca Iandoli, Simonetta Primario et al.•Technological Forecasting and…•2021

  • Sharing is caring

    Open Access•Caoimhe O’Reilly, Caoimhe O'Reilly et al.•Acta Psychologica•2022

  • Social Dominance

    Open Access•Jim Sidanius, Felicia Pratto•Social Dominance•1999

  • The MAD Model of Moral Contagion

    Open Access•William J Brady, Molly J Crockett et al.•Perspectives on Psychological…•2020

  • How European am I?”

    Olivier Klein, Laurent Licata et al.•Self and Identity•2003

  • Discursive Social Psychology

    Jonathan Potter•European Review of Social…•1998

  • Speaker landscapes

    Maria Schuld, K Durrheim et al.•Communication Methods and Measures•2023

  • When debates break apart

    Open Access•Michael Brüggemann, Helmut Meyer et al.•Communication Theory•2023

  • The Effect of Response Categories on Questionnaire Answers

    Open Access•Todd Rockwood, Todd H Rockwood et al.•Sociological Methods & Research•1997

  • Opinion‐based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action

    Open Access•Ana-Maria Bliuc, Ana‐maria Bliuc et al.•European Journal of Social…•2007

  • Social identity emergence in attitude interactions and the identity strengthening effects of cumulative attitude agreement

    Open Access•Caoimhe O’Reilly, Paul J Maher et al.•European Journal of Social…•2024

  • Alignment and Differentiation

    Open Access•D Morselli, K Durrheim et al.•European Journal of Social…•2026

  • Notes towards a description of Social Representations

    Open Access•Serge Moscovici•European Journal of Social…•1988

  • Understanding Polarization

    Open Access•Aaron Bramson, Patrick Grim et al.•Philosophy of Science•2017

  • The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers

    Open Access•A Boutyline, R Willer•Political Psychology•2017

  • A New Opinion Polarization Index Developed by Integrating Expert Judgments

    Open Access•Namkje Koudenburg, Henk A L Kiers et al.•Frontiers in Psychology•2021

  • Human murmuration

    Open Access•K Durrheim, Michael Quayle•European Review of Social…•2025

  • Is Polarization a Myth

    Alan I Abramowitz, Kyle L Saunders•The Journal of Politics•2008

  • How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Democratic Norms

    Open Access•Jon Kingzette, James N Druckman et al.•Public Opinion Quarterly•2021

  • What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization

    Open Access•James N Druckman, Matthew S Levendusky et al.•Public Opinion Quarterly•2019

  • Polarization on social media

    Open Access•K Durrheim, Maria Schuld•Political Psychology•2025

  • The Struggle for the Nature of “Prejudice

    Open Access•K Durrheim, Mike Quayle et al.•Political Psychology•2016

  • A Timely Intervention

    Open Access•Emma Rodman•Political Analysis•2020

  • Political Polarization in the American Public

    Morris P Fiorina, Samuel J Abram et al.•Annual Review of Political Science•2008

  • Affect, Not Ideology

    Sharad Iyengar, Shanto Iyengar et al.•Public Opinion Quarterly•2012

  • Validating the feeling thermometer as a measure of partisan affect in multi-party systems

    Open Access•Noam Gidron, Lior Sheffer et al.•Electoral Studies•2022

  • On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement

    Kalman J Kaplan•Psychological Bulletin•1972

  • Have American's Social Attitudes Become More Polarized

    P Dimaggio, J H Evans et al.•American Journal of Sociology•1996

  • Movements and media

    Open Access•Ruud Koopmans•Theory and Society•2004

Velocidade de citaçãohistorical
Altamente citadoNão
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae