Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42394998›Full record

ReviewOpen research Europe2026

The evolving study of political polarization.

Emre Erdogan, Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, Cláudia Álvares, Bojana Bodroža, Eglė Butkevičienė, Erlis Cela, Jérémy Dodeigne, Shahira S Fahmy, Sarah Helena Schäfer, Graham Scott and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open research Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Emre ErdoganInternational Relations, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8352-4990
Bernadette Nadya JaworskySociology, Masaryk University Faculty of Social Studies, Brno, South Moravian Region, 60200, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-2456
Cláudia ÁlvaresSociology, ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2882-5114
Bojana BodrožaPsychology, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4165-0678
Eglė ButkevičienėKaunas University of Technology Faculty of Social Sciences Humanities and Arts, Kaunas, Kaunas County, Lithuania.
Erlis CelaWestern Balkans University, Tirana, Albania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9202-2981
Jérémy DodeigneUniversity of Namur, Namur, Walloon Region, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3395-2265
Shahira S FahmyJournalism and Mass Communications, The American University in Cairo School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, New Cairo City, Cairo Governorate, Egypt.
Sarah Helena SchäferUniversity of Vienna Department of Sociology, Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3216-5248
Graham ScottUniversity of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland, UK.
Gonzalo Velasco AriasUniversity Carlos III of Madrid, Getafe, Community of Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9584-5051
Rocio Zamora MedinaUniversity of Murcia Faculty of Communication and Information, Murcia, Region of Murcia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-2456

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of political polarization has undergone significant conceptual and methodological evolution, progressing from early emphases on ideological divides toward a more complex understanding that incorporates affective, identity-based, digital, and cross-national dimensions. This shift reflects the growing recognition that polarization is not merely a divergence of policy preferences, but a multifaceted phenomenon shaped by emotional, social, technological, and epistemic processes. In this review, we provide an elaboration of the various ways to approach the study of political polarization. This task may be daunting, but a well-organized, comprehensive and interdisciplinary overview is surely necessary. We begin by elaborating different types of political polarization, moving from an early focus on ideological divides to multidimensional constructs. Then, we shift to an overview of key disciplinary concepts and theoretical approaches for examining political polarization. At the heart of this review, we elaborate the various methodologies and methods for studying polarization, including quantitative, computational/digital, experimental, and qualitative approaches. We also highlight the strengths and limitations of these methodologies. To conclude the review, we first offer some suggestions for interventions that could mitigate the effects of polarization, and second, point to directions for future research. We suggest expanding the national focus that has dominated the study of polarization, highlighting the benefits of cross-national comparisons with a global reach.

Indexed as

epistemologymethodologypolarization

Identifiers

PMID42394998
PMCPMC13320125

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.