Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Selective Exposure to News,Homogeneous Political Discussion Networks,and Affective Political Polarization: An Agent-Based Modeling of Minimal versus Strong Communication Effects
This study employs an agent-based model (ABM) simulation grounded in polarization theory to explore how social and media influences shape affective polarization, social diversity, and media diversity within a hostile partisan information environment. We examine four scenarios: minimal, strong, social-dominated effect, and media-dominated effect, by iterating 16 combinations of parameters, including influence strength, homogeneous discussion, and selective exposure rates. Calibrated with a real-world U.S. population dataset, results show that while social and media influences accelerate sorting, selectivity structure is the primary driver of affective polarization. Notably, low homogeneous discussion and low selective exposure produce the highest polarization levels across four scenarios due to a probabilistic backfire effect that reflects identity-protective cognition. Strong, locally concentrated social influence sharply reduces social diversity, whereas media influence alone cannot produce convergence without social reinforcement. Media diversity proves more resilient due to global exposure, though it declines under high selective exposure and strong media influence. Despite initial partisan gaps, final-stage outcomes reveal minimal differences between Democrats and Republicans across all conditions.
AxelrodR. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002797041002001
2.
BailC. A.ArgyleL. P.BrownT. W.BumpusJ. P.ChenH.HunzakerM. F.VolfovskyA.MannM.MerhoutF. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
3.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
4.
BerntzenL. E.KelsallH.HarteveldE. (2024). Consequences of affective polarization: Avoidance, intolerance and support for violence in the United Kingdom and Norway. European Journal of Political Research, 63(3), 927–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12623
5.
BougherL. D. (2017). The correlates of discord: Identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Political Behavior, 39(3), 731–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9377-1
6.
BoutetA.KimH.YonekiE. (2012). What’s in your tweets? I know who you supported in the U.K. 2010 general election. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 6(1), 411–414. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14283
7.
BrownJ. R.CantoniE.EnosR. D.PonsV.SartreE. (2025). Sources and Extent of Rising Partisan Segregation in the U.S. – Evidence from 143 Million Voters. In NBER Working Paper (No. 33422).National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w33422
8.
ButtersR.HareC. (2020). Polarized networks? New evidence on American voters’ political discussion networks. Political Behavior, 44(3), 1079–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09647-w
9.
CarpentrasD.LuedersA.MaherP. J.O'ReillyC.QuayleM. (2023). How polarization extends to new topics: An agent-based model derived from experimental data. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 26(3), 2. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.5105
10.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an OSROR model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
11.
ColleoniE.RozzaA.ArvidssonA. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
12.
CosciaM.RossiL. (2022). How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation. PloS One, 17(1), Article e0263184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263184
13.
CottonJ. L. (2013). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In ZillmannDolfJennings Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11–33). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203056721
14.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S.McLainA. (2018). No need to watch: How the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325
15.
DruckmanJ. N.LevyJ. (2022). Affective polarization in the American public. In RudolphThomas (Ed.), Handbook on politics and public opinion (pp. 257–270). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800379619
FuchsC. (2025). A new framework for the analysis of media systems and media organisations. Communication and the Public, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473241259195
GarrettR. K.GvirsmanS. D.JohnsonB. K.TsfatiY.NeoR.DalA. (2014). Implications of pro-and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
22.
GarrettR. K.LongJ. A.JeongM. S. (2019). From partisan media to misperception: Affective polarization as mediator. Journal of Communication, 69(5), 490–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz028
23.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x
24.
GestefeldM.LorenzJ. (2023). Calibrating an opinion dynamics model to empirical opinion distributions and transitions. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 26(4), 9. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.5204
25.
GibsonJ. L. (1992). The political consequences of intolerance: Cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964224
26.
Gil de ZúñigaH.ChengZ. (2024). Origin and evolution of the news finds me perception: Review of theory and effects. In GoyanesManuelCañedoAzahara (Eds.), Media influence on opinion change and democracy: How private, public and social media organizations shape public opinion (pp. 151–179). Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2015). Ideological republicans and group interest democrats: The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714003168
28.
HanJ.WackmanD. B. (2017). Partisan self-stereotyping: Testing the salience hypothesis in a prediction of political polarization. International Journal of Communication, 11, 603–625. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5533/1922
29.
HardyB. W.ScheufeleD. A. (2005). Examining differential gains from internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/55.1.71
30.
HolbertR. L.GarrettR. K.GleasonL. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x
31.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
32.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
33.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideologya social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
34.
KarlsenR.BeyerA.Steen-JohnsenK. (2020). Do high-choice media environments facilitate news avoidance? A longitudinal study 1997–2016. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(5), 794–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1835428
35.
KatzE.LazarsfeldP. F. (1955). Personal influence. Free Press.
36.
KaufmanM.KaufmanS.DiepH. T. (2022). Statistical mechanics of political polarization. Entropy, 24(9), 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24091262
KlarS.KrupnikovY.RyanJ. B. (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain?Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy014
39.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.HastallM. R. (2010). Please your self: Social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in-and out-groups. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01495.x
40.
KushwahaA. K.KarA. K.RoyS. K.IlavarasanP. V. (2022). Capricious opinions: A study of polarization of social media groups. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101709
41.
LazarsfeldP. F.BerelsonB.GaudetH. (1968). The people’s choice. Columbia University Press.
42.
LeeJ. K.ChoiJ.KimC.KimY. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077
43.
LelkesY. (2018). Affective polarization and ideological sorting: A reciprocal, albeit weak, relationship. The Forum, 16(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0005
LevyR. E. (2021). Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review, 111(3), 831–870. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191777
46.
LiJ.XiaoR. (2017). Agent-based modelling approach for multidimensional opinion polarization in collective behaviour. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3385
47.
LinH.JiangX.LeeJ.WangY.KimY. (2025). Exploring the paradox of cross-cutting exposure and affective polarization: A curvilinear model influenced by political ideology strength. Media Psychology, 1–25.
48.
LuttigM. D. (2017). Authoritarianism and affective polarization: A new view on the origins of partisan extremism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(4), 866–895. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx023
49.
LyonsJ.SokheyA. E. (2017). Discussion networks, issues, and perceptions of polarization in the American electorate. Political Behavior, 39(4), 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9387-7
50.
MarchalN. (2022). “Be nice or leave me alone”: An intergroup perspective on affective polarization in online political discussions. Communication Research, 49(3), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211042516
51.
MartherusJ. L.MartinezA. G.PiffP. K.TheodoridisA. G. (2021). Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior, 43(2), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09559-4
52.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088437
55.
MutzD. C. (2006). How the mass media divide us. In NivolaP. S.BradyD. W. (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (1, pp. 223–242). Brookings Institution Press.
56.
NicholsonS. P.CoeC. M.EmoryJ.SongA. V. (2016). The politics of beauty: The effects of partisan bias on physical attractiveness. Political Behavior, 38(4), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9339-7
57.
OhmeJ. (2021). Algorithmic social media use and its relationship to attitude reinforcement and issue-specific political participation–the case of the 2015 European immigration movements. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 18(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1805085
58.
PulickE.KorthP.GrimP.JungJ. (2016). Modeling interaction effects in polarization: In-dividual media influence and the impact of town meetings. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3021
59.
RajabiA.MantzarisA. V.AtwalK. S.GaribayI. (2021). Exploring the disparity of influence between users in the discussion of Brexit on Twitter: Twitter influence disparity in Brexit if so, write it here. Journal of Computational Social Science, 4(2), 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00112-0
60.
RudolphT. J.HetheringtonM. J. (2021). Affective polarization in political and nonpolitical settings. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(3), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edaa040
61.
SatherleyN.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (2020). Identity, ideology, and personality: Examining moderators of affective polarization in New Zealand. Journal of Research in Personality, 87, 103961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103961
62.
SchweighoferS.GarciaD. (2024). Raising the spectrum of polarization: Generating issue alignment with a weighted balance opinion dynamics model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18564/10.18564/jasss.5323
63.
SchweighoferS.GarciaD.SchweitzerF. (2020). An agent-based model of multi-dimensional opinion dynamics and opinion alignment. Chaos (Woodbury, NY), 30(9), 093139. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0007523
ShahD. V.ChoJ.NahS.GotliebM. R.HwangH.LeeN. J.McLeodD. M. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00363.x
66.
SlaterM. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
67.
SohnD. (2022). Spiral of silence in the social media era: A simulation approach to the interplay between social networks and mass media. Communication Research, 49(1), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219856510
68.
SongH.BoomgaardenH. G. (2017). Dynamic spirals put to test: An agent-based model of reinforcing spirals between selective exposure, interpersonal networks, and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 256–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12288
TajfelH. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
73.
TörnbergP. (2022). How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(42), Article e2207159119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207159119
74.
TörnbergP.AnderssonC.LindgrenK.BanischS. (2021). Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society. Plos One, 16(10), Article e0258259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258259
75.
Van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.AalbergT.EsserF.De VreeseC.MatthesJ.StanyerJ.SalgadoS.HubéN.StępińskaA.PapathanassopoulosS.BerganzaR.LegnanteG.ReinemannC.SheaferT. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
WebsterS. W.AbramowitzA. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17703132
WojcieszakM.SobkowiczP.YuX.BulatB. (2021). What information drives political polarization? Comparing the effects of In-group praise, out-group derogation, and evidence-based communications on polarization. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(2), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211004418
80.
XiaC.ShenF. (2023). How does political tolerance moderate the effects of social media use on political polarization: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 35(2), Article edad006. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad006
81.
YarchiM.BadenC.Kligler-VilenchikN. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
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.
