在政治化的公共领域中持续进行跨领域讨论

IF 9.1 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Diana C. Mutz
{"title":"在政治化的公共领域中持续进行跨领域讨论","authors":"Diana C. Mutz","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2516942122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although studies of Americans’ general discussant networks have been repeated over time, research that assesses change in the nature of Americans’ <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">political</jats:italic> discussion networks has yet to be conducted in nationally representative probability surveys. In this study I answer two questions about the quality of the American public sphere that have generated widespread speculation, but little evidence to date. First, how have Americans’ political discussion networks changed over the past 25 y? Second, are the consequences of these changes what one would expect based on previous theory linking Americans’ interpersonal information environments to political tolerance and political participation? I resolve competing claims suggesting that people feel less free to discuss politics, with claims suggesting instead that political discussion now permeates everyday life to a greater extent than in the past. Findings suggest widespread increases in political discussion, changes driven almost entirely by increases in like-minded political discussion partners. Surprisingly, Americans are no more or less likely to engage in conversations across lines of political difference. The predicted consequences of these fluctuations confirm an intrinsic tension between characteristics valued in democratic citizens. Political tolerance has declined significantly, along with decreased awareness of rationales for others’ relative to one’s own views. Political participation is significantly higher on average than 25 y ago. Few people reported engaging with online political discussants, despite efforts to make sure they were included in network measures.","PeriodicalId":20548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The persistence of cross-cutting discussion in a politicized public sphere\",\"authors\":\"Diana C. Mutz\",\"doi\":\"10.1073/pnas.2516942122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although studies of Americans’ general discussant networks have been repeated over time, research that assesses change in the nature of Americans’ <jats:italic toggle=\\\"yes\\\">political</jats:italic> discussion networks has yet to be conducted in nationally representative probability surveys. In this study I answer two questions about the quality of the American public sphere that have generated widespread speculation, but little evidence to date. First, how have Americans’ political discussion networks changed over the past 25 y? Second, are the consequences of these changes what one would expect based on previous theory linking Americans’ interpersonal information environments to political tolerance and political participation? I resolve competing claims suggesting that people feel less free to discuss politics, with claims suggesting instead that political discussion now permeates everyday life to a greater extent than in the past. Findings suggest widespread increases in political discussion, changes driven almost entirely by increases in like-minded political discussion partners. Surprisingly, Americans are no more or less likely to engage in conversations across lines of political difference. The predicted consequences of these fluctuations confirm an intrinsic tension between characteristics valued in democratic citizens. Political tolerance has declined significantly, along with decreased awareness of rationales for others’ relative to one’s own views. Political participation is significantly higher on average than 25 y ago. Few people reported engaging with online political discussants, despite efforts to make sure they were included in network measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2516942122\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2516942122","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管对美国人一般讨论网络的研究已经重复了一段时间,但评估美国人政治讨论网络性质变化的研究尚未在具有全国代表性的概率调查中进行。在这项研究中,我回答了两个关于美国公共领域质量的问题,这两个问题引起了广泛的猜测,但迄今为止几乎没有证据。首先,美国人的政治讨论网络在过去25年里发生了怎样的变化?第二,这些变化的后果是否如先前的理论所预期的那样,将美国人的人际信息环境与政治宽容和政治参与联系起来?我解决了一种相互矛盾的说法,这种说法认为人们讨论政治的自由减少了,而另一种说法认为,政治讨论现在比过去更广泛地渗透到日常生活中。调查结果表明,政治讨论的广泛增加,这种变化几乎完全是由志同道合的政治讨论伙伴的增加所驱动的。令人惊讶的是,美国人不太可能或多或少地参与跨越政治分歧的对话。这些波动的预期后果证实了民主公民所看重的特征之间的内在紧张关系。政治容忍度大幅下降,对他人观点相对于自己观点的理性认识也在下降。政治参与的平均水平明显高于25年前。尽管努力确保他们被纳入网络评测,但很少有人报告与在线政治讨论者接触。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The persistence of cross-cutting discussion in a politicized public sphere
Although studies of Americans’ general discussant networks have been repeated over time, research that assesses change in the nature of Americans’ political discussion networks has yet to be conducted in nationally representative probability surveys. In this study I answer two questions about the quality of the American public sphere that have generated widespread speculation, but little evidence to date. First, how have Americans’ political discussion networks changed over the past 25 y? Second, are the consequences of these changes what one would expect based on previous theory linking Americans’ interpersonal information environments to political tolerance and political participation? I resolve competing claims suggesting that people feel less free to discuss politics, with claims suggesting instead that political discussion now permeates everyday life to a greater extent than in the past. Findings suggest widespread increases in political discussion, changes driven almost entirely by increases in like-minded political discussion partners. Surprisingly, Americans are no more or less likely to engage in conversations across lines of political difference. The predicted consequences of these fluctuations confirm an intrinsic tension between characteristics valued in democratic citizens. Political tolerance has declined significantly, along with decreased awareness of rationales for others’ relative to one’s own views. Political participation is significantly higher on average than 25 y ago. Few people reported engaging with online political discussants, despite efforts to make sure they were included in network measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
3575
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), serves as an authoritative source for high-impact, original research across the biological, physical, and social sciences. With a global scope, the journal welcomes submissions from researchers worldwide, making it an inclusive platform for advancing scientific knowledge.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信