IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v169y2023ics0960077923001455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multipolar social systems: Measuring polarization beyond dichotomous contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Martin-Gutierrez, Samuel
  • Losada, Juan C.
  • Benito, Rosa M.

Abstract

Social polarization is a growing concern worldwide, as it strains social relations, erodes trust in institutions, and thus hurts democratic societies. Polarization has been traditionally studied in binary conflicts where two groups support opposite ideas. However, in many social systems, such as multi-party democracies, political conflicts involve multiple dissenting factions. Despite the prevalence of multipolar systems, there is still a lack of suitable analytical tools to study their polarization patterns. In this work, we introduce new polarization metrics for multidimensional scenarios and develop a methodology that extracts the ideological structure of multipolar contexts from social networks. We propose the trace of the covariance matrix (the total variation) of the multipolar opinion distribution as a measure of global polarization, and its eigendecomposition to identify the directions of maximum polarization. Instead of using a pre-conceived opinion space (conservative vs progressive, liberal vs authoritarian, etc.), our framework reveals the natural ideological axes of the system. We apply our methodology to quadripolar and pentapolar real-world democratic processes, finding non-trivial ideological structures with clear connections to the underlying social context. Our framework opens new avenues for understanding multilateral social tensions and facing the challenges of polarization in a unified way.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin-Gutierrez, Samuel & Losada, Juan C. & Benito, Rosa M., 2023. "Multipolar social systems: Measuring polarization beyond dichotomous contexts," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:169:y:2023:i:c:s0960077923001455
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077923001455
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113244?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isaac Waller & Ashton Anderson, 2021. "Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms," Nature, Nature, vol. 600(7888), pages 264-268, December.
    2. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    3. Feng Shi & Misha Teplitskiy & Eamon Duede & James A. Evans, 2019. "The wisdom of polarized crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 329-336, April.
    4. Alexander J. Stewart & Joshua B. Plotkin & Nolan McCarty, 2021. "Inequality, Identity, and Partisanship: How redistribution can stem the tide of mass polarization," Papers 2103.14619, arXiv.org.
    5. Borondo, J. & Morales, A.J. & Benito, R.M. & Losada, J.C., 2015. "Multiple leaders on a multilayer social media," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 90-98.
    6. S. Martin-Gutierrez & J. C. Losada & R. M. Benito, 2018. "Recurrent Patterns of User Behavior in Different Electoral Campaigns: A Twitter Analysis of the Spanish General Elections of 2015 and 2016," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-15, December.
    7. G. Olivares & J. P. Cárdenas & J. C. Losada & J. Borondo, 2019. "Opinion Polarization during a Dichotomous Electoral Process," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-9, February.
    8. Christopher K. Tokita & Andrew M. Guess & Corina E. Tarnita, 2021. "Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(50), pages 2102147118-, December.
    9. Delia Baldassarri & Scott E. Page, 2021. "The emergence and perils of polarization," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(50), pages 2116863118-, December.
    10. Anton Gollwitzer & Cameron Martel & William J. Brady & Philip Pärnamets & Isaac G. Freedman & Eric D. Knowles & Jay J. Van Bavel, 2020. "Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1186-1197, November.
    11. Alexander J. Stewart & Nolan McCarty & Joanna J. Bryson, 2018. "Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline," Papers 1807.11477, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    12. Pedraza, Lucía & Pinasco, Juan Pablo & Saintier, Nicolas & Balenzuela, Pablo, 2021. "An analytical formulation for multidimensional continuous opinion models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    13. Simon Schweighofer & Frank Schweitzer & David Garcia, 2020. "A Weighted Balance Model of Opinion Hyperpolarization," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 23(3), pages 1-5.
    14. Kate Starbird, 2019. "Disinformation’s spread: bots, trolls and all of us," Nature, Nature, vol. 571(7766), pages 449-449, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Max Falkenberg & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Jürgen Pfeffer & Andrea Baronchelli, 2024. "Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Zhang, Zhiwei & Liu, Gao & Chen, Bin & Huang, Kun, 2022. "Social asset or social liability? How partisanship moderates the relationship between social capital and Covid-19 vaccination rates across United States counties," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    3. Michael Bayerlein & Vanessa A. Boese & Scott Gates & Katrin Kamin & Syed Mansoob Murshed, 2021. "Populism and COVID-19: How Populist Governments (Mis)Handle the Pandemic," Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 389-428, December.
    4. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    5. Kunhao Yang & Mengyuan Fu, 2024. "Polarized collaboration benefits knowledge production: empirical analyses of the mediating effect of co-production pattern in Wikipedia articles on climate change," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2677-2699, December.
    6. Alexander J. Stewart & Nichola Raihani, 2022. "Group reciprocity and the evolution of stereotyping," Papers 2205.12652, arXiv.org.
    7. Mellacher, Patrick, 2023. "The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 113-140.
    8. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    9. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2008. "The Efficacy of Parochial Politics: Caste, Commitment, and Competence in Indian Local Governments," NBER Working Papers 14335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    11. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    12. Eric Kaufmann & Henry Patterson, 2006. "Intra‐Party Support for the Good Friday Agreement in the Ulster Unionist Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 509-532, October.
    13. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    14. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    15. Sven Banisch & Eckehard Olbrich, 2021. "An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-1.
    16. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    17. Peter Nijkamp & Marc van der Burch & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "A Comparative Institutional Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Dutch Urban Land-use and Revitalisation Projects," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(10), pages 1865-1880, September.
    18. Vincenzo Atella & Jay Coggins & Federico Perali, 2005. "Aversion to inequality in Italy and its determinants," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(2), pages 117-144, January.
    19. Hibbs, Douglas A, Jr, 2000. "Bread and Peace Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 104(1-2), pages 149-180, July.
    20. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:169:y:2023:i:c:s0960077923001455. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.