As an increasing amount of political communication takes place in a digital context, there is a heightened focus on the intersection of studies of political polarization and digital communication research. Digital communication research provides new opportunities for studying polarization in terms of traceable interactions and scale but adds further complexity to an already challenging concept. In this paper, we review literature from political science and media and communication studies, concluding that a large body of political communication studies focus on polarisation, but do not conceptualise it in relation to media and communication. Similarly, media and communication studies lack a clear conceptual definition of polarisation, reflecting disagreements in political science, and this can lead to common problems when applying the concept of polarization in a digital context. These problems include the conflation of different forms of polarization, the unquestioned adoption of technologically determinist perspectives, and the over-diagnosis of polarization. Building upon existing literature from both fields, we argue for a better demarcation of concepts when we study political polarization as a threat to democracy. We suggest calling this phenomenon destructive political polarization. We then discuss the concept with regard to studying its dynamics in a digital communication context, describing its recognizable elements as manifested in communication.

1. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology,
@qutdmrc; @kathaesa; @t_choucair; @samvilkins; @SebSvegaard; @snurb_dot_info; @CarlyLubicz
Katharina Esau, Tariq Choucair, Samantha Vilkins, Sebastian Svegaard,
Axel Bruns, Kate O'Connor, Carly Lubicz
Destructive Political Polarisation
in the Context of Digital Communication –
A Critical Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

2. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

3. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Background
• Polarisation as a new buzzword representing a potential threat to
democracies, referencing different fields and disciplines under one umbrella
(see e.g., Kreiss & McGregor 2023)
• Different definitions, forms and types of polarisation
(e.g., Kubin & von Sikorski 2021; Lelkes 2016)
• Problematic presupposition of polarisation as negative for democratic
communication and processes; instead, we argue that we need to work towards
determining when this is the case!

4. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Critical Literature Review
• Defining polarisation is complex due to its multiple uses in various academic
fields and common usage
• We conducted a comprehensive review of influential and recent literature:
• We gathered all relevant records from Scopus and Web of Science
containing the terms "polarisation" or "polarization"
• Our focus was on communication, political science, international relations,
sociology, and cultural studies
• We reviewed the most recent or highly cited articles, books, and book
chapters (in total: 200 sources)

5. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Definitions of Political Polarisation
• Core definitions in political science (Bruns et al. 2024; Lelkes 2016):
• Ideological polarisation as convergence: party identity aligns with ideology and
attitudes become more internally consistent (e.g., Abramowitz & Saunders 2008)
• Ideological polarisation as divergence: presence of two (or more) blocks that
are far apart (e.g., Fiorina & Levendusky 2006)
• Affect- or identity-based polarisation can increase while ideological divides are
constant (e.g., Iyengar et al. 2012)
• Issue polarisation; perceived polarisation (e.g., Lelkes 2016; Westfall et al. 2015)
• Attempts to (re-)conceptualise polarisation in the context of digital
communication (e.g., Yarchi et al. 2021), but in many cases political science concepts of
polarisation are assumed, but not operationalised by media and communication
scholars (Kubin & von Sikorski 2021)

6. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Polarisation is not per se a destructive process; we need to work towards
determining when this is the case
• Therefore, we propose five key elements of destructive polarisation:
a) breakdown of communication
b) discrediting and dismissing of information
c) erasure of complexities
d) exacerbated attention and space for extreme voices
e) exclusion through emotions
Elements of Destructive Polarisation

7. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Contact with disagreement plays a crucial role in fostering democratic
communication (e.g., Mutz, 2006)
• Research on homophily, social distance, and selective exposure defines
influence factors that encourage or prevent individuals in groups engaging with
difference (e.g., Stroud, 2010; Iyengar & Hahn, 2009)
• However, studies suggest that online interactions are characterised by
substantial crosscutting contact, challenging the notion of "filter bubbles" or
"echo chambers" (e.g., Barbera, 2015; Bruns, 2019)
• Taking an interactional and nuanced approach: we recognise that contact
can be terminated after divergence, or it may exist without a significant
allocation of time or attention
Breakdown of Communication

8. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Debates often discredit evidence from opposing sides, which is
more destructive when this is a priori due to origin from an out-group
• Information is sorted based on its alignment or disruption of prior expectations
and beliefs (e.g., Washburn & Skitka 2018) — but at extremes this can result in
deterioration of any common ground at more fundamental levels
• Not only are out-group sources vilified, but non-partisan sources can be
tainted from previous use or presenting similar conclusions (e.g., Sylvester et al. 2023)
• Feeds from/into breakdowns in communication as exponentially more
groups of sources and narratives are rejected a priori
Discrediting of Information

9. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Identities are crucial in understanding partisanship and polarisation (e.g., Jengelley &
Clawson, 2018)
• Increasing evidence of hyper-partisanship, subsuming other identities (e.g., Finkel
et al., 2020; Chapman, 2021)
• However, both media and academia contribute to this issue by oversimplifying
positions into opposing binaries (e.g., Leavers vs. Remainers, Democrats vs.
Republicans)
• While it is necessary to study bipolarity, it is equally important to recognise
the complexities within apparent oppositions
• Oversimplification of complexities may create a feedback loop, reinforcing
hyper-partisanship as partisans feel compelled to conform to their positions
Erasure of Complexities

10. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Perceived polarisation: citizens’ perceptions of divisions between
groups/parties (e.g., Settle 2018; Lelkes 2016)
• Extreme minority opinions dominating public attention becomes
problematic when creating a heightened perception of extreme polarisation
• Politicians with extreme views on social media, e.g., Twitter (e.g., Hong & Kim 2016)
• News giving disproportionate space to extreme and polarising voices (e.g., Hart
et al. 2020; Wagner & Gruszcynski 2018)
• Media climate presenting a picture of extreme polarisation, when the actual
balance of opinions is considerably less polarised, can have destructive
effects on the legitimising function of public spaces
Exacerbated Attention to Extreme Voices

11. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Affective polarisation is a growing concern among political communication
scholars (e.g., Druckman et al. 2021; Iyengar et al. 2012)
• Emotions play a vital role for political thinking, behaviour, and
communication (Keltner & Haidt 1999; Marcus et al., 2000)
• Mixed results on effects of emotions on communication outcomes (e.g., Esau &
Friess 2022; Heiss et al. 2019)
• Emotions directed at political “others” seem particularly problematic (e.g., Esau
et al. 2023; Walton 1992)
• Affect and emotion undermining social and democratic values turns
polarisation into destructive affective polarisation (e.g., Kingzette et al. 2021)
Exclusion through Emotions

12. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
• Results of literature review:
• Political science reveals core definitions and disagreements, such as ideological
polarisation manifesting as convergence or divergence of political positions
• The fields of political and digital communication lack (re-)conceptualisation
• Let's avoid using polarisation as a hollow buzzword and instead imbue it with substance!
• We demonstrate that destructive polarisation is characterised by specific communication
practices when: (a) channels of interaction and trust erode, (b) information from opposing sides is
dismissed, (c) differences in communication are erased, (d) extreme voices are amplified, and (e)
emotions are exploited for exclusion
• Empirical validation to substantiate the existence of destructive polarisation
• Theoretical integration within public sphere theory and its core functions is vital
• What do these findings imply for depolarisation?
Discussion

13. CRICOS No.00213J
Esau et al., @kathaesa, @qutdmrc
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Corresponding author:
Katharina Esau, @kathaesa
Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
Contact: katharina.esau@qut.edu.au
Thank you
Questions?

14. CRICOS No.00213J
This research is supported by the ARC Laureate Fellowship project Dynamics of Partisanship and
Polarisation in Online Public Debate, ARC Future Fellowship project Understanding Intermedia
Information Flows in the Australian Online Public Sphere.
Acknowledgment