We present a system dynamics model (SDM) of woke/anti-woke (WAW) dynamics in Norway, calibrated against Norwegian Citizen Panel data from 2014 to 2023. The SDM synthesizes theories related to WAW dynamics, including Moral Foundations Theory and two contrasting types of sensitivity to injustice (focusing on injustice to self and injustice to others). The simulation's two dependent variables measure the total amount of radicalism (left-wing and right-wing combined) relative to the population, and the amount of left-wing radicalism versus right-wing radicalism. Minimizing ideological polarization calls for minimizing the first output measure, while winning ideological culture wars draws attention to the second output measure. Results exhibit the vital role that homophily—the extent to which people socialize and communicate with those ideologically similar to themselves—plays in exacerbating or ameliorating ideological polarization in a society. High homophily increases radicalism in a relatively balanced way. Unbalanced radicalism can occur, but only at low levels of homophily. This suggests practical interventions: intensify culture wars by increasing homophily through media bubbles and decreasing encounters with unfamiliar others; or reduce polarization by decreasing homophily, encouraging positive encounters with unfamiliar others, and resisting one-sided radicalism when it arises by emphasizing civil virtues.
AsenR (2024) Anti-woke publics. Political Communication41(6): 1029–1034.
2.
AxelrodR (1997) The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution41(2): 203–226.
3.
BaldassarriDBearmanP (2007) Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review72(5): 784–811.
4.
BanischSOlbrichE (2021) An argument communication model of polarization and ideological alignment. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation24(1): 1.
5.
BertottiMLMenaleM (2024) Opinion dynamics models describing the emergence of polarization phenomena. Journal of Computational Social Science7(3): 2591–2612.
BramsonAGrimPSingerDJ, et al. (2017) Understanding polarization: Meanings, measures, and model evaluation. Philosophy of Science84(1): 115–159.
8.
Cano MaciasRRuiz VeraJM (2024) Dynamics of opinion polarization in a population. Mathematical Social Sciences128: 31–40.
9.
CarleR (2013) Anders Breivik and the death of free speech in Norway. Society50(4): 395–401.
10.
CarpentrasDLuedersAMaherPJ, et al. (2023) How polarization extends to new topics: An agent-based model derived from experimental data. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation26(3): 2.
11.
CastellsM (1983) The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
CentolaDGonzález-AvellaJCEguíluzVM, et al. (2007) Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution51(6): 905–929.
ColeJCGillisAJvan der LindenS, et al. (2025) Social psychological perspectives on political polarization: Insights and implications for climate change. Perspectives on Psychological Science20(1): 115–141.
16.
ConwayLGHouckSCGornickLJ, et al. (2018) Finding the loch ness monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology39(5): 1049–1067.
17.
Conway IIILGZubrodAChanL, et al. (2023) Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?Frontiers in Psychology13. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1041391.
18.
CostelloTHBowesSMStevensST, et al. (2022) Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology122(1): 135–170.
19.
DaltonRJ (1987) Generational change in elite political beliefs: The growth of ideological polarization. The Journal of Politics49(4): 976–997.
20.
DayMVFiskeSTDowningELTrailTE, et al. (2014) Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin40(12): 1559–1573.
DickinsonJLMcLeodPBloomfieldR, et al. (2016) Which moral foundations predict willingness to make lifestyle changes to avert climate change in the USA?PLOS ONE11(10): e0163852.
24.
EgererSCoteraRVCelliersL, et al. (2021) A leverage points analysis of a qualitative system dynamics model for climate change adaptation in agriculture. Agricultural Systems189: 103052.
25.
FarkhariFScharbertJKroenckeL, et al. (2025) Right-wing authoritarianism and perceptions that minoritized groups pose a threat: The moderating roles of individual- and country-level religiosity and marginalization. The British Journal of Social Psychology64(1): e12830.
26.
FlacheAMacyMW (2006) What sustains cultural diversity and what undermines it?Axelrod and beyond (No. arXiv:physics/0604201). arXiv. 10.48550/arXiv.physics/0604201
GrahamJHaidtJNosekBA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(5): 1029–1046.
30.
GrimmVRailsbackSFVincenotCE, et al. (2020) The ODD protocol for describing agent-based and other simulation models: A second update to improve clarity, replication, and structural realism. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation23(2). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.4259.
31.
GuYWangZ (2022) Income inequality and global political polarization: The economic origin of political polarization in the world. Journal of Chinese Political Science27(2): 375–398.
32.
HaqueAAjmeriNSinghMP (2023) Understanding dynamics of polarization via multiagent social simulation. AI & SOCIETY38(4): 1373–1389.
33.
HegselmannRKrauseU (n.d.) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation.
34.
KittsJA (2006) Social influence and the emergence of norms amid ties of amity and enmity. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory14(4): 407–422.
35.
KivikangasJMFernández-CastillaBJärveläS, et al. (2021) Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin147(1): 55–94.
36.
KlemmKEguı´luzVMToralR, et al. (2005) Globalization, polarization and cultural drift. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control29(1): 321–334.
37.
KołczyńskaM (2025) Does polarization increase participation? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. European Political Science Review17(4): 553–568.
38.
KubinEvon SikorskiC (2021) The role of (social) Media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association45(3): 188–206.
39.
KullbackS (1951) Kullback-leibler divergence. Encyclopedia of Machine Learning: 581–583.
40.
LeeAHY (2022) Social trust in polarized times: How perceptions of political polarization affect Americans’ trust in each other. Political Behavior44(3): 1533–1554.
41.
LeiningerAGrünewaldFBuntfußN (2023) Ideological and affective polarization in multiparty systems. SocArXiv. 10.31235/osf.io/mz6rs
42.
LeonardNELipsitzKBizyaevaA, et al. (2021) The nonlinear feedback dynamics of asymmetric political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(50): e2102149118.
43.
LevenduskyMMalhotraN (2015) Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?Political Communication33(2): 283–301.
MarinoGIannelliL (2023) Seven years of studying the associations between political polarization and problematic information: A literature review. Frontiers in Sociology8. 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1174161.
46.
MasonL (2022) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
McCoyJSomerM (2019) Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it Harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681(1): 234–271.
49.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27(1): 415–444.
MillerAHListhaugO (1990) Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science20(3): 357–386.
OsborneDCostelloTHDuckittJ, et al. (2023) The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism. Nature Reviews Psychology2(4): 220–232.
55.
OslerALybaekL (2015) Educating ‘the new Norwegian we’: an examination of national and cosmopolitan education policy discourses in the context of extremism and Islamophobia. Oxford Review of Education40(5): 543–566.
56.
PirroALP (2024) The contemporary far right from contra to control. Political Communication41(6): 1017–1022.
57.
PriorM (2013) Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science16: 101–127.
58.
RahmanTResnickPJHarryB (2016) Anders Breivik: Extreme beliefs mistaken for psychosis. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law44(1): 28–35.
59.
RempalaDMOkdieBMGarveyKJ (2016) Articulating ideology: How liberals and conservatives justify political affiliations using morality-based explanations. Motivation and Emotion40(5): 703–719.
60.
RichardsB (2014) What Drove Anders Breivik?Contexts13(4): 42–47.
RothmundTBrommeLAzevedoF (2020) Justice for the people? How justice sensitivity can foster and impair support for populist radical-right parties and politicians in the United States and in Germany. Political Psychology41(3): 479–497.
63.
SalajanFDJulesTD (2024) The global resurgence of authoritarianism and its existential threats to education: Implications for scholarship in comparative and international education. Comparative Education Review68(3): 319–344.
ShinYAConstantinoSMGrossLJ, et al. (2025) Culture mediates climate opinion change: A system dynamics model of risk perception, polarization, and policy effectiveness. Climate13(9): 194.
68.
ShultsFLLaneJEWildmanWJ, et al. (2018) Modelling terror management theory: Computer simulations of the impact of mortality salience on religiosity. Religion, Brain & Behavior8(1): 77–100.
69.
SmithDSBoagLKeeganC, et al. (2023) Land of woke and glory? The conceptualisation and framing of “wokeness” in UK Media and public discourses. Javnost - The Public30(4): 513–533.
70.
SteelJ (2023) Free speech, ‘Cancel culture’ and the ‘War on woke.’ In SteelJPetleyJ (eds) The Routledge Companion to Freedom of Expression and Censorship. New York: Routledge, 232–244.
71.
StermanJD (2002) System dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world [Dataset]. 10.1287/420a0422-8060-4775-b8d7-a8f01fa36ffe
72.
TokitaCKGuessAMTarnitaCE (2021) Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(50): e2102147118.
73.
VanDreewBMPhillipsJBMunisBK, et al. (2025) What’s woke? Ordinary Americans’ understandings of wokeness. Research & Politics12(2): 20531680251335650.
VaughanTJBell HolleranLSilverJR (2019) Applying moral foundations theory to the explanation of capital Jurors’ sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly36(7): 1176–1205.
76.
VertovecSCohenR (2002) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
77.
VilanovaFMilfontTLCostaAB (2023) Short version of the right-wing authoritarianism scale for the Brazilian context. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica36(1): 17.
VölkerTSaldivia GonzattiD (2024) Discourse networks of the far right: How far-right actors become mainstream in public debates. Political Communication41(3): 353–372.
80.
WestfallJVan BovenLChambersJR, et al. (2015) Perceiving political polarization in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science10(2): 145–158.
XuTBirchfieldABOverbyeTJ (2018) Modeling, tuning, and validating system dynamics in synthetic electric grids. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems33(6): 6501–6509.
83.
YangHBukkapatnamSTSBarajasLG (2013) Continuous flow modelling of multistage assembly line system dynamics. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing26(5): 401–411.
84.
YangJRojasHAalbergT, et al. (2016) Why are “Others” so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(5): 349–367.
85.
YudkinDAHawkinsSDixonT (2019) The perception gap: How false impressions are pulling Americans apart. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/r3h5q.
86.
ZangariLGrecoCMPiccaD, et al. (2025) A survey on Moral Foundation Theory and pre-trained language models: Current advances and challenges. AI & SOCIETY40(6): 4973–4998.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
