I have this startup idea about politics. What if we had a website that incorporated multiple perspectives into each article. That way people would be able to become informed about a topic. Here's a site that tries to do that:
https://www.theperspective.com/
The Perspective
2016-12-13
None
<div><div>
	<p>
	© 2017 Perspective-Media LTD. All Rights Reserved 	</p>
	</div>||||I|||| The
 THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

 Categories

 * Living
 * Sports
 * Politics
 * Entertainment
 * Biz/Tech
 * Timelines
 * About us
 * FAQ
 * Contact us
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Use
 * DMCA
 * Keynote
 * Sitemap
 * What The Hell Are They Thinking? (The Perspective Book)
 About
 Search

 More results...

 Generic filters
 Filter by Custom Post Type
 formats back
 * The Big debates
 Our signature Pro/Con articles on various big debates. explore
 * Subjective Timelines
 (HISTORIC) See how different sides see the same key events in ongoing conflicts. explore
 * My Perspective
 Write your own perspective. explore
 * Get The Book
 What The Hell Are They Thinking? : The 100 debates that govern your life, written in a way that tells both sides of every story. explore

 Proud recipient of the following awards:

 Popular:

 Elon Musk Gun Control Putin Messi Marijuana Circumcision Religion Hamilton
 + More - Less

 Educate Yourself

 Discover both sides of the issues governing your life

 Search

 More results...

 Generic filters
 Filter by Custom Post Type

 POPULAR MillennialsRefugeesMinajTrumpMilkMarijuanaClimate changeDisneyreverse racismGun ControlVeganismFederer

 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl

 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?

 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?

 More
 * The Big debates
 Our signature Pro/Con articles on various big debates. explore
 * Subjective Timelines
 (HISTORIC) See how different sides see the same key events in ongoing conflicts. explore
 * My Perspective
 Write your own perspective. explore
 * Get The Book
 What The Hell Are They Thinking? : The 100 debates that govern your life, written in a way that tells both sides of every story. explore
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl

 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?

 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?

 Sports | #nfl

 Does defense win football championships?

 Is it all about defense or does winning have more to do with offense?

 Living | #history #the education debate

 Should Holocaust Education in Schools Be Mandatory?

 Are young students mature enough to benefit from the life lessons of the Holocaust?

 Living | #the abortion debate

 The Perspective on Abortion: Should it be a viable option?

 An extremely personal procedure yet a matter of public and political debate.

 Entertainment | Living | #feminism

 Should We Cheer for Beauty Pageants or Call for Their Demise?

 Do their opportunities for female empowerment outweigh the negative attributes and controversy surrounding them?

 Living | #The Racism Debate

 The Perspective on Affirmative Action

 Does it protect the disadvantaged or unintentionally promote other forms of discrimination?

 Join our newsletter

 Please enter a valid email.

 Thank you!
 Biz/Tech
 Biz/Tech | #The economy debate #tech giants

 Is E-Commerce Pushing Us Forward or Holding Us Back?

 A double-edged sword, it destroys as it creates, it constructs monopolies as it invites competition.

 Biz/Tech | #social media #tech giants

 Is Twitter a life-enhancing or life-disabling tool?

 #cyberbullying #straightforward #grammar #freespeech #Musk

 Biz/Tech | #tech giants

 The Perspective on Elon Musk

 While his innovation and drive contribute to technological ingenuity, his persona may negatively influence society.

 Biz/Tech | #big data

 The Perspective on Big Data

 Is it being used for good or should we worry about its future implications on our privacy and consumerism?

 Biz/Tech | #The economy debate

 Startups: Is it better to be first or second to the market?

 Should entrepreneurs aspire to be pioneers or the first followers?

 Biz/Tech | #startups

 Start Your Startup after School or Get Some Full-Time Experience First?

 Are there lessons to be gained from the workplace or is taking the entrepreneurial plunge more prudent?

 Entertainment
 Entertainment | Living | #feminism

 Should We Cheer for Beauty Pageants or Call for Their Demise?

 Do their opportunities for female empowerment outweigh the negative attributes and controversy surrounding them?

 Entertainment | #television

 Is Binge-Watching a harmless or helpful activity?

 It may provide a better viewing experience, but there are potential health risks involved.

 Entertainment | #film

 (Titanic) Could Jack have been saved?

 Was there enough room on that raft for both Jack and Rose?

 Entertainment | #celebrities #Fame

 Should Celebrities be the voice of Social Causes?

 Are social causes better left to experts or famous activists?

 Entertainment | #music #celebrity

 Is Kanye West a Great Artist or a Great Marketer?

 "Everytime I’m in Vegas they screaming like I’m Elvis, but I just want to design hotels and nail it" (K. west. Clique)

 Entertainment | #Theater #movies

 Back to the Future: Musical or Movie. Which is better?

 The movie is a classic, with rich storytelling and action, while the musical is full of life and music. Which is better?

 Living
 Living | #history #the education debate

 Should Holocaust Education in Schools Be Mandatory?

 Are young students mature enough to benefit from the life lessons of the Holocaust?

 Living | #the abortion debate

 The Perspective on Abortion: Should it be a viable option?

 An extremely personal procedure yet a matter of public and political debate.

 Entertainment | Living | #feminism

 Should We Cheer for Beauty Pageants or Call for Their Demise?

 Do their opportunities for female empowerment outweigh the negative attributes and controversy surrounding them?

 Living | #The Racism Debate

 The Perspective on Affirmative Action

 Does it protect the disadvantaged or unintentionally promote other forms of discrimination?

 Living | #health #drugs

 The Perspective on Ayahuasca: Is it worth trying?

 While it may provide a transformative experience, it can also have adverse side effects.

 Living | #The Royal Family

 Is the British Monarchy a worthy institution or outdated relic?

 Is it still relevant today or an unnecessary symbol of times long gone?

 Politics
 Politics | The Big Debates | #the America debate

 Should the First Amendment cover racism and hate speech?

 Should the US Constitution protect free speech or those who suffer its repercussions?

 Politics | #the America debate

 How Similar are the Far-Left and the Far-Right?

 To what extent do similar actions by both sides mean similarity in character?

 Politics | #the America debate

 Should convicted criminals have the right to vote?

 Should it be untouchable, or is it a privilege that has potential to be revoked?

 Politics | The Big Debates | #the death penalty debate

 Is the Death Penalty Justified or Should It Be Abolished?

 Given the moral complexities and depth of emotions involved, the death penalty is an age-old controversial debate.

 Politics | #history #ethics

 Should Christopher Columbus be honored or renounced?

 National Treasure or International Blemish?

 Politics | #Russia #Putin

 The Perspective on Putin

 As someone both popular and feared, does he deserve respect or suspicion?

 Sports
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl

 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?

 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?

 Sports | #nfl

 Does defense win football championships?

 Is it all about defense or does winning have more to do with offense?

 Sports | The Big Debates | #soccer

 Messi or Ronaldo – who is truly the best?

 As there can be only one “best,” who is it? The phenomenal Portuguese Ronaldo or the one-team man Lionel Messi?

 Sports | #professional sports

 Is MMA too dangerous?

 Is MMA any more dangerous than boxing or other contact sports?

 Sports | #soccer #MONDIAL 2018

 Can Soccer be the next big American sport?

 Soccer is the most popular sport everywhere but in the US. Will demographic shifts change that?

 Sports | #MLB #baseball

 Should Major League Baseball Get Rid of Designated Hitters?

 The American League and now the National League both use designated hitters. For better or for worse?

 The Big Debates
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl

 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?

 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?

 Sports | The Big Debates | #soccer

 Messi or Ronaldo – who is truly the best?

 As there can be only one “best,” who is it? The phenomenal Portuguese Ronaldo or the one-team man Lionel Messi?

 Politics | The Big Debates | #the America debate

 Should the First Amendment cover racism and hate speech?

 Should the US Constitution protect free speech or those who suffer its repercussions?

 Politics | The Big Debates | #the death penalty debate

 Is the Death Penalty Justified or Should It Be Abolished?

 Given the moral complexities and depth of emotions involved, the death penalty is an age-old controversial debate.

 Living | The Big Debates | #the Circumcision debate

 The Perspective on Circumcision

 The majority of American males are circumcised. Based on what we know, should we continue this practice?

 Living | The Big Debates | #the environment debate

 Climate Change – Act now, or question the urgency of the threat?

 Everything is politicized, even the climate. So where do we stand with politics vs. nature?

 Join our newsletter

 Please enter a valid email.

 Thank you!
 * Categories
 * Biz/Tech
 * Entertainment
 * Living
 * Politics
 * Sports
 * formats
 * The Big debates
 * Subjective Timelines
 * My Perspective
 * About us
 * FAQ
 * Contact us
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Use
 * DMCA
 * Keynote
 * Sitemap
 * What The Hell Are They Thinking? (The Perspective Book)
 © 2017 Perspective-Media LTD. All Rights Reserved
The
 THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
 Categories
 * Living
 * Sports
 * Politics
 * Entertainment
 * Biz/Tech
 * Timelines
 * About us
 * FAQ
 * Contact us
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Use
 * DMCA
 * Keynote
 * Sitemap
 * What The Hell Are They Thinking? (The Perspective Book)
 About
 Search
 More results...
 Generic filters
 Filter by Custom Post Type
 formats back
 * The Big debates
 Our signature Pro/Con articles on various big debates. explore
 * Subjective Timelines
 (HISTORIC) See how different sides see the same key events in ongoing conflicts. explore
 * My Perspective
 Write your own perspective. explore
 * Get The Book
 What The Hell Are They Thinking? : The 100 debates that govern your life, written in a way that tells both sides of every story. explore
 Proud recipient of the following awards:
 Popular:
 Elon Musk Gun Control Putin Messi Marijuana Circumcision Religion Hamilton
 + More - Less
 Educate Yourself
 Discover both sides of the issues governing your life
 Search
 More results...
 Generic filters
 Filter by Custom Post Type
 POPULAR MillennialsRefugeesMinajTrumpMilkMarijuanaClimate changeDisneyreverse racismGun ControlVeganismFederer
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl
 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?
 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?
 More
 * The Big debates
 Our signature Pro/Con articles on various big debates. explore
 * Subjective Timelines
 (HISTORIC) See how different sides see the same key events in ongoing conflicts. explore
 * My Perspective
 Write your own perspective. explore
 * Get The Book
 What The Hell Are They Thinking? : The 100 debates that govern your life, written in a way that tells both sides of every story. explore
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl
 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?
 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?
 Sports | #nfl
 Does defense win football championships?
 Is it all about defense or does winning have more to do with offense?
 Living | #history #the education debate
 Should Holocaust Education in Schools Be Mandatory?
 Are young students mature enough to benefit from the life lessons of the Holocaust?
 Living | #the abortion debate
 The Perspective on Abortion: Should it be a viable option?
 An extremely personal procedure yet a matter of public and political debate.
 Entertainment | Living | #feminism
 Should We Cheer for Beauty Pageants or Call for Their Demise?
 Do their opportunities for female empowerment outweigh the negative attributes and controversy surrounding them?
 Living | #The Racism Debate
 The Perspective on Affirmative Action
 Does it protect the disadvantaged or unintentionally promote other forms of discrimination?
 Join our newsletter
 Please enter a valid email.
 Thank you!
 Biz/Tech
 Biz/Tech | #The economy debate #tech giants
 Is E-Commerce Pushing Us Forward or Holding Us Back?
 A double-edged sword, it destroys as it creates, it constructs monopolies as it invites competition.
 Biz/Tech | #social media #tech giants
 Is Twitter a life-enhancing or life-disabling tool?
 #cyberbullying #straightforward #grammar #freespeech #Musk
 Biz/Tech | #tech giants
 The Perspective on Elon Musk
 While his innovation and drive contribute to technological ingenuity, his persona may negatively influence society.
 Biz/Tech | #big data
 The Perspective on Big Data
 Is it being used for good or should we worry about its future implications on our privacy and consumerism?
 Biz/Tech | #The economy debate
 Startups: Is it better to be first or second to the market?
 Should entrepreneurs aspire to be pioneers or the first followers?
 Biz/Tech | #startups
 Start Your Startup after School or Get Some Full-Time Experience First?
 Are there lessons to be gained from the workplace or is taking the entrepreneurial plunge more prudent?
 Entertainment
 Entertainment | Living | #feminism
 Should We Cheer for Beauty Pageants or Call for Their Demise?
 Do their opportunities for female empowerment outweigh the negative attributes and controversy surrounding them?
 Entertainment | #television
 Is Binge-Watching a harmless or helpful activity?
 It may provide a better viewing experience, but there are potential health risks involved.
 Entertainment | #film
 (Titanic) Could Jack have been saved?
 Was there enough room on that raft for both Jack and Rose?
 Entertainment | #celebrities #Fame
 Should Celebrities be the voice of Social Causes?
 Are social causes better left to experts or famous activists?
 Entertainment | #music #celebrity
 Is Kanye West a Great Artist or a Great Marketer?
 "Everytime I’m in Vegas they screaming like I’m Elvis, but I just want to design hotels and nail it" (K. west. Clique)
 Entertainment | #Theater #movies
 Back to the Future: Musical or Movie. Which is better?
 The movie is a classic, with rich storytelling and action, while the musical is full of life and music. Which is better?
 Living
 Living | #history #the education debate
 Should Holocaust Education in Schools Be Mandatory?
 Are young students mature enough to benefit from the life lessons of the Holocaust?
 Living | #the abortion debate
 The Perspective on Abortion: Should it be a viable option?
 An extremely personal procedure yet a matter of public and political debate.
 Entertainment | Living | #feminism
 Should We Cheer for Beauty Pageants or Call for Their Demise?
 Do their opportunities for female empowerment outweigh the negative attributes and controversy surrounding them?
 Living | #The Racism Debate
 The Perspective on Affirmative Action
 Does it protect the disadvantaged or unintentionally promote other forms of discrimination?
 Living | #health #drugs
 The Perspective on Ayahuasca: Is it worth trying?
 While it may provide a transformative experience, it can also have adverse side effects.
 Living | #The Royal Family
 Is the British Monarchy a worthy institution or outdated relic?
 Is it still relevant today or an unnecessary symbol of times long gone?
 Politics
 Politics | The Big Debates | #the America debate
 Should the First Amendment cover racism and hate speech?
 Should the US Constitution protect free speech or those who suffer its repercussions?
 Politics | #the America debate
 How Similar are the Far-Left and the Far-Right?
 To what extent do similar actions by both sides mean similarity in character?
 Politics | #the America debate
 Should convicted criminals have the right to vote?
 Should it be untouchable, or is it a privilege that has potential to be revoked?
 Politics | The Big Debates | #the death penalty debate
 Is the Death Penalty Justified or Should It Be Abolished?
 Given the moral complexities and depth of emotions involved, the death penalty is an age-old controversial debate.
 Politics | #history #ethics
 Should Christopher Columbus be honored or renounced?
 National Treasure or International Blemish?
 Politics | #Russia #Putin
 The Perspective on Putin
 As someone both popular and feared, does he deserve respect or suspicion?
 Sports
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl
 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?
 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?
 Sports | #nfl
 Does defense win football championships?
 Is it all about defense or does winning have more to do with offense?
 Sports | The Big Debates | #soccer
 Messi or Ronaldo – who is truly the best?
 As there can be only one “best,” who is it? The phenomenal Portuguese Ronaldo or the one-team man Lionel Messi?
 Sports | #professional sports
 Is MMA too dangerous?
 Is MMA any more dangerous than boxing or other contact sports?
 Sports | #soccer #MONDIAL 2018
 Can Soccer be the next big American sport?
 Soccer is the most popular sport everywhere but in the US. Will demographic shifts change that?
 Sports | #MLB #baseball
 Should Major League Baseball Get Rid of Designated Hitters?
 The American League and now the National League both use designated hitters. For better or for worse?
 The Big Debates
 Sports | The Big Debates | #nfl
 Is Tom Brady the greatest QB to ever play the game?
 Should Brady be called the best quarterback in NFL history?
 Sports | The Big Debates | #soccer
 Messi or Ronaldo – who is truly the best?
 As there can be only one “best,” who is it? The phenomenal Portuguese Ronaldo or the one-team man Lionel Messi?
 Politics | The Big Debates | #the America debate
 Should the First Amendment cover racism and hate speech?
 Should the US Constitution protect free speech or those who suffer its repercussions?
 Politics | The Big Debates | #the death penalty debate
 Is the Death Penalty Justified or Should It Be Abolished?
 Given the moral complexities and depth of emotions involved, the death penalty is an age-old controversial debate.
 Living | The Big Debates | #the Circumcision debate
 The Perspective on Circumcision
 The majority of American males are circumcised. Based on what we know, should we continue this practice?
 Living | The Big Debates | #the environment debate
 Climate Change – Act now, or question the urgency of the threat?
 Everything is politicized, even the climate. So where do we stand with politics vs. nature?
 Join our newsletter
 Please enter a valid email.
 Thank you!
 * Categories
 * Biz/Tech
 * Entertainment
 * Living
 * Politics
 * Sports
 * formats
 * The Big debates
 * Subjective Timelines
 * My Perspective
 * About us
 * FAQ
 * Contact us
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Use
 * DMCA
 * Keynote
 * Sitemap
 * What The Hell Are They Thinking? (The Perspective Book)
 © 2017 Perspective-Media LTD. All Rights Reserved
The Perspective
https://www.theperspective.com/
https://www.kialo.com/
Explore Popular Debates, Discussions and Critical Thinking…
2023-01-01
None
<div><div>
 
 <ul>
 <li>
 
</li>
<li>
 <div>
 
 <p>Kialo in Numbers
 (Public Debates)
 </p>
 </div>
</li><li>
 
</li>
<li>
 <div>
 
 <p>Kialo in Numbers
 (Public Debates)
 </p>
 </div>
</li>
<li>
 <div>
 
 <p>Top Contributors
 (7d / Public Debates)
 </p>
 </div>
</li><li>
 
</li><li>
 
</li>
<li>
 <div>
 
 <p>Top Contributors
 (7d / Public Debates)
 </p>
 </div>
</li>
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
 
 <li>
 
</li>
 
 
 
</ul>
 
 
 
 
 </div></div>||||I|||| Kialo requires JavaScript to work correctly.
 For private & public use: Kialo.com
 For educators: Kialo-edu.com
 Log In Sign Up

 Explore Debates

 * 
 + Politics
 + Philosophy
 + Science
 + Ethics
 + Gender
 + Religion
 + USA
 + Europe
 + Technology
 * 
 + Technology
 + Education
 See More

 Featured

 Popular New Hot
 * Gender Neutral Bathrooms: Should They be Standard?
 * Kialo in Numbers (Public Debates)
 Contributions
 3,012,301
 Votes
 1,250,758
 Debates
 17,959
 Claims
 717,170
 * Should animal testing be banned?
 * Kialo in Numbers (Public Debates)
 Contributions
 3,012,301
 Votes
 1,250,758
 Debates
 17,959
 Claims
 717,170
 * Top Contributors (7d / Public Debates)
 1
 ColdBrewLogic
 78 contributions
 2
 skeletorhavoc
 62 contributions
 3
 sistercities
 47 contributions
 4
 artie
 47 contributions
 5
 milquetoast
 45 contributions
 * All Humans Should Be Vegan.
 * Is it ethically wrong to watch pornography?
 * Top Contributors (7d / Public Debates)
 1
 ColdBrewLogic
 78 contributions
 2
 skeletorhavoc
 62 contributions
 3
 sistercities
 47 contributions
 4
 artie
 47 contributions
 5
 milquetoast
 45 contributions
 * Should humans act to fight climate change?
 Contributors
 * The primary purpose of marriage is procreating and raising children.
 * The Existence of God
 * Should all drugs be legalised?
 * Should women-only spaces be open to anyone identifying as a woman?
 * Does Feminism Empower Both Women And Men?
 * Would the world be a better place without humans?
 * Is India the best host for the ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2023?
 Contributors
 * Should the US adopt stricter gun control legislation?
 * Does the Bible support the conclusion that 'homosexuality' is a sin against God?
 * Is LeBron James better than Michael Jordan?
 * Should Ukraine surrender in order to save lives?
 * Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Should Abortion be Legal?
 * Should You Confess to Cheating After a One Night Stand?
 * Should There be a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?
 Contributors
 * Marvel vs DC: Which Universe is Better?
 * If Scientifically Possible, Should Humans Become Immortal?
 * Does Feminism Strive For Equality?
 * Are arranged marriages better than love marriages?
 * Should general AI have fundamental rights?
 * Should US Presidents Have the Power to Issue Pardons?
 * Is Saying #AllLivesMatter Instead of #BlackLivesMatter Better?
 Contributors
 Show More
 Explore
 Search
 Tour
 About
 What’s New
 Privacy Policy
 Terms of Service
 Help Center
 Contact Us
 Status

 For private & public use

 For educators

 © Kialo 2023
 English
 Empowering Reason
Kialo in Numbers
 (Public Debates)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kialo in Numbers
 (Public Debates)
 
 
 
 
 Top Contributors
 (7d / Public Debates)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Top Contributors
 (7d / Public Debates)
Explore Popular Debates, Discussions and Critical Thinking…
https://www.kialo.com/
https://www.procon.org/
ProCon.org - Pros and Cons of 100+ Topics
2023-04-20
None
<div><div>
<main>
<div>
<h3><strong><em>Is the Internet Making YOU “Stupid”?</em></strong><br /><strong>**</strong> <a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5XQLDYB">Take the ProCon Poll</a> <strong>**</strong></h3>
<p><a href="#issues-by-category"><i></i> By Category</a> <a href="#issues-by-alpha"><i></i> Topics A-Z</a></p>
<div>
<div>
<h4>NEW TOPICS</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/cheerleading-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Cheerleading</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/filibuster-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Filibuster</a></li>
<li><a href="https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/">Prescription Drug Costs</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/dress-codes-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Dress Codes</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/employer-vaccine-mandates-pros-and-cons-should-employers-be-able-to-mandate-vaccinations/">Employer Vaccine Mandates</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/artificial-intelligence-ai-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Artificial Intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/private-prisons-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Private Prisons</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/space-colonization-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Space Colonization</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/pit-bull-bans-top-2-pros-and-cons/">Pit Bull Bans</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/dc-and-puerto-rico-statehood/">DC and Puerto Rico Statehood</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-student-loan-debt-be-easier-to-discharge-in-bankruptcy-top-3-pros-cons/">Student Loan Debt</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/american-socialism-top-2-pros-and-cons/">American Socialism</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-the-internet-making-us-stupid-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid?”</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h4>SOCIETY</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/defund-the-police-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Defund the Police</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-cancel-culture-or-callout-culture-good-for-society/">Cancel Culture</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/historic-statue-removal-top-3-pros-cons/">Historic Statue Removal </a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/national-anthem-kneeling-pros-cons-procon-org/">Kneeling during National Anthem</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/pit-bull-bans-top-2-pros-and-cons/">Pit Bull Bans</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/dress-codes-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Dress Codes</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gaymarriage.procon.org/">Gay Marriage</a> (archived 12/15/21)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h4>EDUCATION</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://school-uniforms.procon.org/">School Uniforms</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/homework-pros-cons-procon-org/">Homework</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/top-3-pros-and-cons-of-animal-dissection/">Animal Dissection</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-student-loan-debt-be-easier-to-discharge-in-bankruptcy-top-3-pros-cons/">Student Loan Debt</a></li>
<li><a href="https://standardizedtests.procon.org/">Standardized Tests</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/free-college-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Free College</a></li>
<li><a href="https://college-education.procon.org/">College Education</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/school-vouchers-top-4-pros-and-cons/">School Vouchers</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/corporal-punishment-pros-cons-procon-org/">Corporal Punishment</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/banned-books-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Banned Books</a></li>
<li><a href="https://teachertenure.procon.org/">Teacher Tenure </a>(archived 11/28/22)</li>
<li><a href="https://tablets-textbooks.procon.org/">Tablets vs. Textbooks</a> (archived 11/28/22)</li>
<li><a href="https://dare.procon.org/">D.A.R.E</a> (archived 6/22/17)</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<h4>GOVERNMENT</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/filibuster-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Filibuster</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/private-prisons-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Private Prisons</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/dc-and-puerto-rico-statehood/">DC and Puerto Rico Statehood</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/american-socialism-top-2-pros-and-cons/">American Socialism</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/us-supreme-court-packing-top-2-pros-and-cons/">US Supreme Court Packing</a></li>
<li><a href="https://deathpenalty.procon.org/">Death Penalty</a></li>
<li><a href="https://drinkingage.procon.org/">Lower Drinking Age</a></li>
<li><a href="https://immigration.procon.org/">Illegal Immigration</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gun-control.procon.org/">Gun Control</a></li>
<li><a href="https://marijuana.procon.org/">Recreational Marijuana Legalization</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/mandatory-national-service-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Mandatory National Service</a></li>
<li><a href="https://concealedguns.procon.org/">Concealed Handguns</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/sanctuary-cities-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Sanctuary Cities</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/are-daca-and-the-dream-act-good-for-america/">DACA &amp; Dreamers</a></li>
<li><a href="https://undergod.procon.org/">Under God in the Pledge</a>(archived 1/9/23)</li>
<li><a href="https://aclu.procon.org/">ACLU</a> (archived 12/15/21)</li>
<li><a href="https://prostitution.procon.org/">Prostitution Legalization</a> (archived 12/15/21)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h4>SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/employer-vaccine-mandates-pros-and-cons-should-employers-be-able-to-mandate-vaccinations/">Employer Vaccine Mandates</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/artificial-intelligence-ai-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Artificial Intelligence</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/space-colonization-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Space Colonization</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-the-internet-making-us-stupid-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid?”</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/fracking-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Fracking</a></li>
<li><a href="https://animal-testing.procon.org/">Animal Testing</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cellphones.procon.org/">Cell Phone Radiation</a></li>
<li><a href="https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/">Alternative Energy</a></li>
<li><a href="https://climatechange.procon.org/">Climate Change</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-net-neutrality-be-restored-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Net Neutrality</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/police-body-cameras-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Police Body Cameras</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-bottled-water-be-banned-top-4-pros-and-cons/">Bottled Water Ban</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/zoos-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Zoos</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/gmos-top-3-pros-and-cons/">GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/dakota-access-pipeline-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Dakota Access Oil Pipeline</a> (archived 10/7/20)</li>
<li><a href="https://borngay.procon.org/">Born Gay</a> (archived 10/19/20)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h4>ELECTIONS &amp; PRESIDENTS</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://felonvoting.procon.org/">Felon Voting</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/electoral-college-pros-cons-procon-org/">Electoral College</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/lowering-the-voting-age-top-3-pros-and-cons/
">Lowering the Voting Age to 16</a></li>
<li><a href=" /headlines/election-day-national-holiday-top-3-pros-and-cons/
">Election Day National Holiday</a></li>
<li><a href="https://votingmachines.procon.org/">Voting Machines</a></li>
<li><a href="https://reagan.procon.org/">Ronald Reagan</a> (archived 10/16/20)</li>
<li><a href="https://clinton.procon.org/">Bill Clinton</a> (archived 10/16/20)</li>
<li><a href="https://2008election.procon.org/">2008 Presidential Election</a> (archived 1/19/09)</li>
<li><a href="https://2012election.procon.org/">2012 Presidential Election</a> (archived 1/22/13)</li>
<li><a href="https://2016election.procon.org/">2016 Presidential Election</a> (archived 1/21/17)</li>
<li><a href="https://2020election.procon.org/">2020 Presidential Election</a> (archived 1/7/20)</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<h4>ECONOMY &amp; TAXES</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://minimum-wage.procon.org/">Minimum Wage</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/reparations-for-slavery-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Reparations for Slavery</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-student-loan-debt-be-easier-to-discharge-in-bankruptcy-top-3-pros-cons/">Student Loan Debt</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gold-standard.procon.org/">Gold Standard</a></li>
<li><a href="https://corporatetax.procon.org/">Corporate Tax Rate</a></li>
<li><a href="https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/">Churches and Taxes</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/ride-hailing-apps-such-as-uber-and-lyft-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Uber &amp; Lyft</a></li>
<li><a href="https://socialsecurity.procon.org/">Social Security Privatization</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/universal-basic-income-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Universal Basic Income</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-the-penny-stay-in-circulation-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Penny</a></li>
<li><a href="https://bigthreeauto.procon.org/">Big Three Auto</a> (archived 5/15/09)</li>
<li><a href="https://insidertrading.procon.org/">Insider Trading by Congress</a> (archived 4/18/12)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h4>HEALTH &amp; MEDICINE</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/">Medical Marijuana</a></li>
<li><a href="https://euthanasia.procon.org/">Euthanasia &amp; Assisted Suicide</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/is-vaping-with-e-cigarettes-safe/">Vaping E-Cigarettes</a></li>
<li><a href="https://vaccines.procon.org/">Vaccines for Kids</a></li>
<li><a href="https://milk.procon.org/">Milk</a></li>
<li><a href="https://birth-control.procon.org/">OTC Birth Control</a></li>
<li><a href="https://abortion.procon.org/">Abortion</a></li>
<li><a href="https://vegetarian.procon.org/">Vegetarianism</a></li>
<li><a href="https://obesity.procon.org/">Obesity</a></li>
<li><a href="https://healthcare.procon.org/">Right to Health Care</a></li>
<li><a href="https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/">Prescription Drug Costs</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/marijuana-for-pets-top-3-pros-and-cons/">Marijuana (CBD) for Pets</a></li>
<li><a href="https://healthcarereform.procon.org/">Obamacare</a> (archived 10/14/20)</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<h4>WORLD / INTERNATIONAL</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cuba-embargo.procon.org/">Cuba Embargo</a></li>
<li><a href="https://drones.procon.org/">Drone Strikes Overseas</a></li>
<li><a href="https://israelipalestinian.procon.org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/">Israeli-Palestinian Conflict </a>(archived 8/3/21)</li>
<li><a href="/headlines/was-the-us-drone-shot-down-by-iran-over-international-waters/">US Drone Shot Down by Iran</a> (archived 10/15/20)</li>
<li><a href="https://usiraq.procon.org/">US – Iraq War</a> (archived 12/31/11)</li>
<li><a href="https://wtcmuslimcenter.procon.org/">WTC Muslim Center</a> (archived 6/3/13)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://abortion.procon.org/"><strong>Abortion</strong> – Should abortion be legal?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://aclu.procon.org/"><strong>ACLU</strong> – Is the ACLU good for America?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/"><strong>Alternative Energy</strong> – Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/american-socialism-top-2-pros-and-cons/"><strong>American Socialism</strong> – Should the US become socialist?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/top-3-pros-and-cons-of-animal-dissection/"><strong>Animal Dissection</strong> – Should K-12 students dissect animals in science classrooms?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://animal-testing.procon.org/"><strong>Animal Testing</strong> – Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/artificial-intelligence-ai-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Artificial Intelligence</strong> – Is artificial intelligence good for society?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/banned-books-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Banned Books</strong> – Should parents or other adults be able to ban books from schools and libraries?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://bigthreeauto.procon.org/"><strong>Big Three Bailout</strong> – Should the big three car manufacturers be bailed out by the US government?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/binge-watching-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Binge-Watching</strong> – Is binge-watching good for you?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://borngay.procon.org/"><strong>Born Gay</strong> – Is sexual orientation determined at birth?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-bottled-water-be-banned-top-4-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Bottled Water Ban</strong> – Should bottled water be banned?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-cancel-culture-or-callout-culture-good-for-society/"><strong>Cancel Culture</strong> – Is cancel culture (or callout culture) good for society?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/marijuana-for-pets-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>CBD for Pets</strong> – Is CBD good for pets?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cellphones.procon.org/"><strong>Cell Phone Radiation</strong> – Is cell phone radiation safe?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/cheerleading-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Cheerleading</strong> – Is cheerleading a sport?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/"><strong>Churches &amp; Taxes</strong> – Should churches (including mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://climatechange.procon.org/"><strong>Climate Change</strong> – Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://college-education.procon.org/"><strong>College Education</strong> – Is a college education worth it?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://collegefootball.procon.org/"><strong>College Football Playoffs</strong> – Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://concealedguns.procon.org/"><strong>Concealed Handguns</strong> – Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://insidertrading.procon.org/"><strong>Congressional Insider Trading</strong> – Should insider trading by Congress be allowed?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/corporal-punishment-pros-cons-procon-org/"><strong>Corporal Punishment</strong> – Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://corporatetax.procon.org/"><strong>Corporate Tax Rate</strong> – Should the federal corporate income tax rate be raised?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cuba-embargo.procon.org/"><strong>Cuba Embargo</strong> – Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/are-daca-and-the-dream-act-good-for-america/"><strong>DACA &amp; Dreamers</strong> – Are DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the DREAM Act good for America?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://dare.procon.org/"><strong>D.A.R.E.</strong> – Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America’s kids (K-12)?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/dakota-access-pipeline-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Dakota Access Pipeline</strong> – Should the Dakota Access Pipeline be completed?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/top-3-pros-and-cons-of-daylight-saving-time/"><strong>Daylight Saving Time</strong> – Should the United States keep daylight saving time?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/dc-and-puerto-rico-statehood/"><strong>DC AND Puerto Rico Statehood</strong> – Should Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico be granted US statehood?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://deathpenalty.procon.org/"><strong>Death Penalty</strong> – Should the death penalty be legal?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/dress-codes-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Dress Codes</strong> – Should dress codes be implemented and enforced?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/defund-the-police-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Defund the Police</strong> – Should police departments be defunded, if not abolished? </a></li>
<li><a href="https://drinkingage.procon.org/"><strong>Drinking Age</strong> – Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://drones.procon.org/"><strong>Drone Strikes</strong> – Should the United States continue its use of drone strikes abroad?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/"><strong>Drug Use in Sports</strong> – Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/election-day-national-holiday-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Election Day National Holiday</strong> – Should the election day be made a national holiday?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/electoral-college-pros-cons-procon-org/"><strong>Electoral College</strong> – Should the United States use the Electoral College in presidential elections?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/employer-vaccine-mandates-pros-and-cons-should-employers-be-able-to-mandate-vaccinations/"><strong>Employer Vaccine Mandates</strong> – Should employers be able to mandate vaccinations?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://felonvoting.procon.org/"><strong>Felon Voting</strong> – Should people who have completed felony sentences be allowed to vote?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-fighting-be-allowed-in-hockey-top-3-pros-cons/"><strong>Fighting in Hockey</strong> – Should fighting be allowed in hockey?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/filibuster-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Filibuster</strong> – Should the US Senate keep the filibuster?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/fracking-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Fracking</strong> – Should the United States continue fracking</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/free-college-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Free College</strong> – Should public college be tuition-free?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gaymarriage.procon.org/"><strong>Gay Marriage</strong> – Should gay marriage be legal?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/gmos-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)</strong> – Should genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be grown?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gold-standard.procon.org/"><strong>Gold Standard</strong> – Should the United States return to a gold standard?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://golf.procon.org/"><strong>Golf</strong> – Is golf a sport and are golfers athletes?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gun-control.procon.org/"><strong>Gun Control</strong> – Should more gun control laws be enacted?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/historic-statue-removal-top-3-pros-cons/"><strong>Historic Statue Removal</strong> – Should historic statues be taken down?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/homework-pros-cons-procon-org/"><strong>Homework</strong> – Is homework beneficial?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://immigration.procon.org/"><strong>Illegal Immigration</strong> – Should the government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/is-the-internet-making-us-stupid-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Internet</strong> – Is the internet “making us stupid?”</a></li>
<li><a href="https://israelipalestinian.procon.org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/"><strong>Israeli-Palestinian Conflict</strong> – What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/national-anthem-kneeling-pros-cons-procon-org/"><strong>Kneeling during the National Anthem</strong> – Is kneeling during the national anthem an appropriate form of protest?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/mandatory-national-service-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Mandatory National Service</strong> – Should the United States have mandatory national service?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/"><strong>Medical Marijuana</strong> – Should medical marijuana be legal?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://euthanasia.procon.org/"><strong>Medical Aid in Dying (MAID)</strong> – Should medical aid in dying (MAID) be legal??</a></li>
<li><a href="https://milk.procon.org/"><strong>Milk</strong> – Should humans consume dairy milk?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://minimum-wage.procon.org/"><strong>Minimum Wage</strong> – Should the federal minimum wage be increased?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-net-neutrality-be-restored-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Net Neutrality</strong> – Should the US have net neutrality laws? </a></li>
<li><a href="https://healthcarereform.procon.org/"><strong>Obamacare</strong> – Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://obesity.procon.org/"><strong>Obesity</strong> – Is obesity a disease?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/hosting-the-olympic-games-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Olympics</strong> – Are the Olympic games an overall benefit for their host countries and cities?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://birth-control.procon.org/"><strong>Over-the-Counter (OTC) Birth Control Pills</strong> – Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter (OTC)?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/paying-college-athletes-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Paying College Athletes</strong> – Should colleges and universities pay college athletes?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-the-penny-stay-in-circulation-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Penny</strong> – Should the penny stay in circulation?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/pit-bull-bans-top-2-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Pit Bull Bans</strong> – Should breed-specific legislation (“pit bull bans”) be enacted?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/pokemon-go-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Pokémon</strong> – Is Pokémon Go good for our society?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/police-body-cameras-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Police Body Cameras</strong> – Should police officers wear body cameras?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/"><strong>Prescription Drug Costs</strong> – Should the US federal government regulate prescription drug prices?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://clinton.procon.org/"><strong>President Bill Clinton</strong> – Was Bill Clinton a good president?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://reagan.procon.org/"><strong>President Ronald Reagan</strong> – Was Ronald Reagan a good president?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2008election.procon.org/"><strong>Presidential Election, 2008</strong> – Which candidate would make the best US president?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2012election.procon.org/"><strong>Presidential Election, 2012</strong> – Which candidate should be US president in 2012?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2016election.procon.org/"><strong>Presidential Election, 2016</strong> – The Candidates and Where They Stand on the Issues</a></li>
<li><a href="https://2020election.procon.org/"><strong>Presidential Election, 2020</strong> – 2020 Presidential Election Site</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/private-prisons-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Private Prisons</strong> – Should prisons be privatized?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://prostitution.procon.org/"><strong>Prostitution</strong> – Should prostitution be legal?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://marijuana.procon.org/"><strong>Recreational Marijuana</strong> – Should recreational marijuana be legal?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/reparations-for-slavery-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Reparations for Slavery</strong> – Should the federal government pay reparations to the descendants of slaves?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://healthcare.procon.org/"><strong>Right to Healthcare</strong> – Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/sanctuary-cities-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Sanctuary Cities</strong> – Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://santa-claus.procon.org/"><strong>Santa Claus</strong> – Is there really a Santa Claus?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/saturday-halloween-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Saturday Halloween</strong> – Should Halloween be moved permanently to Saturday?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://school-uniforms.procon.org/"><strong>School Uniforms</strong> – Should students have to wear school uniforms?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/school-vouchers-top-4-pros-and-cons/"><strong>School Vouchers</strong> – Should states have school voucher programs?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://socialnetworking.procon.org/"><strong>Social Media</strong> – Is social media good for society?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://socialsecurity.procon.org/"><strong>Social Security Privatization</strong> – Should social security be privatized?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/space-colonization-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Space Colonization</strong> – Should humans colonize space?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://standardizedtests.procon.org/"><strong>Standardized Tests</strong> – Do standardized tests improve education in America?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/should-student-loan-debt-be-easier-to-discharge-in-bankruptcy-top-3-pros-cons/"><strong>Student Loan Debt</strong> – Should student loan debt be eliminated via forgiveness or bankruptcy?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://tablets-textbooks.procon.org/"><strong>Tablets v. Textbooks</strong> -Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://teachertenure.procon.org/"><strong>Teacher Tenure</strong> – Should teachers get tenure?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/ride-hailing-apps-such-as-uber-and-lyft-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Uber &amp; Lyft</strong> – Are ride-hailing companies a benefit to society?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://undergod.procon.org/"><strong>Under God in the Pledge</strong> – Should the words “under god” be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/was-the-us-drone-shot-down-by-iran-over-international-waters/"><strong>US Drone Shot down by Iran</strong> – Was the US drone shot down by Iran over international waters?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/universal-basic-income-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Universal Basic Income (UBI)</strong> – Should the United States implement a universal basic income?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://usiraq.procon.org/"><strong>US-Iraq War</strong> – Should the US have attacked Iraq?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.procon.org/headlines/us-supreme-court-packing-top-2-pros-and-cons/"><strong>US Supreme Court Packing</strong> – Should packing the US Supreme Court ever be considered?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://vaccines.procon.org/"><strong>Vaccines for Kids</strong> – Should states be allowed to mandate vaccines for school attendance?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/is-vaping-with-e-cigarettes-safe/">Vaping E-Cigarettes – Is vaping e-cigarettes safe?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://vegetarian.procon.org/"><strong>Vegetarianism</strong> – Should people become vegetarian?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://videogames.procon.org/"><strong>Video Games &amp; Violence</strong> – Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/lowering-the-voting-age-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Voting Age</strong> – Should the voting age be lowered to 16?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://votingmachines.procon.org/"><strong>Voting Machines</strong> – Are electronic voting machines the best method for voting?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://wtcmuslimcenter.procon.org/"><strong>WTC Muslim Center</strong> – Is it appropriate to build a muslim community center (aka the ”ground zero mosque”) near the World Trade Center site?</a></li>
<li><a href="/headlines/zoos-top-3-pros-and-cons/"><strong>Zoos</strong> – Should zoos exist?</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
<h3><a href="/headlines/">PROCON.ORG HEADLINES – Our Issues in the News</a></h3>
<div>
<div>
<h3>OUR LATEST UPDATES</h3>
<div>
<p><a href="https://deathpenalty.procon.org/states-with-the-death-penalty-and-states-with-death-penalty-bans/"> <strong>Washington Officially Abolishes Death Penalty</strong></a> <br />
4/24/2023 -
</p><p>On Apr. 20, 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed Senate Bill 5087, which removed the laws the state supreme court found unconstitutionally, officially abolishing the death penalty in Washington. The states’s supreme court ruled the laws unconstitutional in 2018.</p>
</div>
<p><a href="https://www.procon.org/our-latest-updates/archive/">Archived Notices</a> (archived after 30 days)</p>
</div>
<div>
<figure><a href="https://www.procon.org/education/"></a></figure>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</main>
</div></div>||||I|||| Skip to content
 * Home
 * More Issues
 * About Us
 * FAQs
 * Teachers’ Corner
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 

 New Topic: Is Cheerleading a Sport?

 Should Abortion Be Legal?

 Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid”?

 Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

 Is Cancel Culture Good for Society?

 Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?

 Should Police Departments Be Defunded, if Not Abolished?

 Is the Internet Making YOU “Stupid”?
 ** Take the ProCon Poll **

 By Category Topics A-Z

 NEW TOPICS

 * Cheerleading
 * Filibuster
 * Prescription Drug Costs
 * Dress Codes
 * Employer Vaccine Mandates
 * Artificial Intelligence
 * Private Prisons
 * Space Colonization
 * Pit Bull Bans
 * DC and Puerto Rico Statehood
 * Student Loan Debt
 * American Socialism
 * Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid?”

 SOCIETY

 * Defund the Police
 * Cancel Culture
 * Historic Statue Removal
 * Kneeling during National Anthem
 * Pit Bull Bans
 * Dress Codes
 * Gay Marriage (archived 12/15/21)

 EDUCATION

 * School Uniforms
 * Homework
 * Animal Dissection
 * Student Loan Debt
 * Standardized Tests
 * Free College
 * College Education
 * School Vouchers
 * Corporal Punishment
 * Banned Books
 * Teacher Tenure (archived 11/28/22)
 * Tablets vs. Textbooks (archived 11/28/22)
 * D.A.R.E (archived 6/22/17)

 GOVERNMENT

 * Filibuster
 * Private Prisons
 * DC and Puerto Rico Statehood
 * American Socialism
 * US Supreme Court Packing
 * Death Penalty
 * Lower Drinking Age
 * Illegal Immigration
 * Gun Control
 * Recreational Marijuana Legalization
 * Mandatory National Service
 * Concealed Handguns
 * Sanctuary Cities
 * DACA & Dreamers
 * Under God in the Pledge (archived 1/9/23)
 * ACLU (archived 12/15/21)
 * Prostitution Legalization (archived 12/15/21)

 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

 * Employer Vaccine Mandates
 * Artificial Intelligence
 * Space Colonization
 * Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid?”
 * Fracking
 * Animal Testing
 * Cell Phone Radiation
 * Alternative Energy
 * Climate Change
 * Net Neutrality
 * Police Body Cameras
 * Bottled Water Ban
 * Zoos
 * GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)
 * Dakota Access Oil Pipeline (archived 10/7/20)
 * Born Gay (archived 10/19/20)

 ELECTIONS & PRESIDENTS

 * Felon Voting
 * Electoral College
 * Lowering the Voting Age to 16
 * Election Day National Holiday
 * Voting Machines
 * Ronald Reagan (archived 10/16/20)
 * Bill Clinton (archived 10/16/20)
 * 2008 Presidential Election (archived 1/19/09)
 * 2012 Presidential Election (archived 1/22/13)
 * 2016 Presidential Election (archived 1/21/17)
 * 2020 Presidential Election (archived 1/7/20)

 ECONOMY & TAXES

 * Minimum Wage
 * Reparations for Slavery
 * Student Loan Debt
 * Gold Standard
 * Corporate Tax Rate
 * Churches and Taxes
 * Uber & Lyft
 * Social Security Privatization
 * Universal Basic Income
 * Penny
 * Big Three Auto (archived 5/15/09)
 * Insider Trading by Congress (archived 4/18/12)

 HEALTH & MEDICINE

 * Medical Marijuana
 * Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide
 * Vaping E-Cigarettes
 * Vaccines for Kids
 * Milk
 * OTC Birth Control
 * Abortion
 * Vegetarianism
 * Obesity
 * Right to Health Care
 * Prescription Drug Costs
 * Marijuana (CBD) for Pets
 * Obamacare (archived 10/14/20)

 ENTERTAINMENT & SPORTS

 * Cheerleading
 * Paying College Athletes
 * Social Media
 * Video Games and Violence
 * Drug Use in Sports
 * Binge-Watching
 * Golf
 * Olympics
 * Fighting in Hockey
 * Pokémon
 * College Football Playoffs (archived 9/18/12)

 WORLD / INTERNATIONAL

 * Cuba Embargo
 * Drone Strikes Overseas
 * Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (archived 8/3/21)
 * US Drone Shot Down by Iran (archived 10/15/20)
 * US – Iraq War (archived 12/31/11)
 * WTC Muslim Center (archived 6/3/13)

 CALENDAR EVENTS

 * Saturday Halloween
 * Santa Claus
 * Daylight Saving Time
 * Election Day National Holiday

 YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

 * Watch Our Videos
 * Teachers’ Corner
 * Testimonials
 * Partners & Donors
 * Suggest a Topic
 * Cite This Page
 * Share on Social Media

 1. Abortion – Should abortion be legal?
 2. ACLU – Is the ACLU good for America?
 3. Alternative Energy – Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
 4. American Socialism – Should the US become socialist?
 5. Animal Dissection – Should K-12 students dissect animals in science classrooms?
 6. Animal Testing – Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?
 7. Artificial Intelligence – Is artificial intelligence good for society?
 8. Banned Books – Should parents or other adults be able to ban books from schools and libraries?
 9. Big Three Bailout – Should the big three car manufacturers be bailed out by the US government?
 10. Binge-Watching – Is binge-watching good for you?
 11. Born Gay – Is sexual orientation determined at birth?
 12. Bottled Water Ban – Should bottled water be banned?
 13. Cancel Culture – Is cancel culture (or callout culture) good for society?
 14. CBD for Pets – Is CBD good for pets?
 15. Cell Phone Radiation – Is cell phone radiation safe?
 16. Cheerleading – Is cheerleading a sport?
 17. Churches & Taxes – Should churches (including mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?
 18. Climate Change – Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?
 19. College Education – Is a college education worth it?
 20. College Football Playoffs – Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system?
 21. Concealed Handguns – Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?
 22. Congressional Insider Trading – Should insider trading by Congress be allowed?
 23. Corporal Punishment – Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools?
 24. Corporate Tax Rate – Should the federal corporate income tax rate be raised?
 25. Cuba Embargo – Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?
 26. DACA & Dreamers – Are DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the DREAM Act good for America?
 27. D.A.R.E. – Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America’s kids (K-12)?
 28. Dakota Access Pipeline – Should the Dakota Access Pipeline be completed?
 29. Daylight Saving Time – Should the United States keep daylight saving time?
 30. DC AND Puerto Rico Statehood – Should Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico be granted US statehood?
 31. Death Penalty – Should the death penalty be legal?
 32. Dress Codes – Should dress codes be implemented and enforced?
 33. Defund the Police – Should police departments be defunded, if not abolished?
 34. Drinking Age – Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?
 35. Drone Strikes – Should the United States continue its use of drone strikes abroad?
 36. Drug Use in Sports – Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
 37. Election Day National Holiday – Should the election day be made a national holiday?
 38. Electoral College – Should the United States use the Electoral College in presidential elections?
 39. Employer Vaccine Mandates – Should employers be able to mandate vaccinations?
 40. Felon Voting – Should people who have completed felony sentences be allowed to vote?
 41. Fighting in Hockey – Should fighting be allowed in hockey?
 42. Filibuster – Should the US Senate keep the filibuster?
 43. Fracking – Should the United States continue fracking
 44. Free College – Should public college be tuition-free?
 45. Gay Marriage – Should gay marriage be legal?
 46. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – Should genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be grown?
 47. Gold Standard – Should the United States return to a gold standard?
 48. Golf – Is golf a sport and are golfers athletes?
 49. Gun Control – Should more gun control laws be enacted?
 50. Historic Statue Removal – Should historic statues be taken down?
 51. Homework – Is homework beneficial?
 52. Illegal Immigration – Should the government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
 53. Internet – Is the internet “making us stupid?”
 54. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
 55. Kneeling during the National Anthem – Is kneeling during the national anthem an appropriate form of protest?
 56. Mandatory National Service – Should the United States have mandatory national service?
 57. Medical Marijuana – Should medical marijuana be legal?
 58. Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) – Should medical aid in dying (MAID) be legal??
 59. Milk – Should humans consume dairy milk?
 60. Minimum Wage – Should the federal minimum wage be increased?
 61. Net Neutrality – Should the US have net neutrality laws?
 62. Obamacare – Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America?
 63. Obesity – Is obesity a disease?
 64. Olympics – Are the Olympic games an overall benefit for their host countries and cities?
 65. Over-the-Counter (OTC) Birth Control Pills – Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter (OTC)?
 66. Paying College Athletes – Should colleges and universities pay college athletes?
 67. Penny – Should the penny stay in circulation?
 68. Pit Bull Bans – Should breed-specific legislation (“pit bull bans”) be enacted?
 69. Pokémon – Is Pokémon Go good for our society?
 70. Police Body Cameras – Should police officers wear body cameras?
 71. Prescription Drug Costs – Should the US federal government regulate prescription drug prices?
 72. President Bill Clinton – Was Bill Clinton a good president?
 73. President Ronald Reagan – Was Ronald Reagan a good president?
 74. Presidential Election, 2008 – Which candidate would make the best US president?
 75. Presidential Election, 2012 – Which candidate should be US president in 2012?
 76. Presidential Election, 2016 – The Candidates and Where They Stand on the Issues
 77. Presidential Election, 2020 – 2020 Presidential Election Site
 78. Private Prisons – Should prisons be privatized?
 79. Prostitution – Should prostitution be legal?
 80. Recreational Marijuana – Should recreational marijuana be legal?
 81. Reparations for Slavery – Should the federal government pay reparations to the descendants of slaves?
 82. Right to Healthcare – Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?
 83. Sanctuary Cities – Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding?
 84. Santa Claus – Is there really a Santa Claus?
 85. Saturday Halloween – Should Halloween be moved permanently to Saturday?
 86. School Uniforms – Should students have to wear school uniforms?
 87. School Vouchers – Should states have school voucher programs?
 88. Social Media – Is social media good for society?
 89. Social Security Privatization – Should social security be privatized?
 90. Space Colonization – Should humans colonize space?
 91. Standardized Tests – Do standardized tests improve education in America?
 92. Student Loan Debt – Should student loan debt be eliminated via forgiveness or bankruptcy?
 93. Tablets v. Textbooks -Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?
 94. Teacher Tenure – Should teachers get tenure?
 95. Uber & Lyft – Are ride-hailing companies a benefit to society?
 96. Under God in the Pledge – Should the words “under god” be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
 97. US Drone Shot down by Iran – Was the US drone shot down by Iran over international waters?
 98. Universal Basic Income (UBI) – Should the United States implement a universal basic income?
 99. US-Iraq War – Should the US have attacked Iraq?
 100. US Supreme Court Packing – Should packing the US Supreme Court ever be considered?
 101. Vaccines for Kids – Should states be allowed to mandate vaccines for school attendance?
 102. Vaping E-Cigarettes – Is vaping e-cigarettes safe?
 103. Vegetarianism – Should people become vegetarian?
 104. Video Games & Violence – Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?
 105. Voting Age – Should the voting age be lowered to 16?
 106. Voting Machines – Are electronic voting machines the best method for voting?
 107. WTC Muslim Center – Is it appropriate to build a muslim community center (aka the ”ground zero mosque”) near the World Trade Center site?
 108. Zoos – Should zoos exist?

 PROCON.ORG HEADLINES – Our Issues in the News

 FDA Advisors Say Progestin-Only Birth Control Pill Safe for OTC Status
 Illinois Legislature Passes Ban on Book Bans
 Social Media… for Parrots?
 Mexican Immigrant Population Largest in United States

 OUR LATEST UPDATES

 Updated Topic! School Uniforms
 5/18/2023 -

 One of our most popular debates is now updated

 New Resource: Glossary: Animals Used in Animal Testing
 5/1/2023 -

 Ever wonder what a tamarau is? ProCon’s new glossary of animals used in animal testing can help!
 (it’s a small species of buffalo)

 North Carolina Again Requires Completion of Prison, Probation, and Parole to Vote
 5/1/2023 -

 On Apr. 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned a trial court decision. Those convicted of felonies are now required to complete prison, probation, parole, and pay all fines before they may register to vote.

 Washington Officially Abolishes Death Penalty
 4/24/2023 -

 On Apr. 20, 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed Senate Bill 5087, which removed the laws the state supreme court found unconstitutionally, officially abolishing the death penalty in Washington. The states’s supreme court ruled the laws unconstitutional in 2018.

 Archived Notices (archived after 30 days)

 * HOME
 * About
 * Cite This Page
 * Reprinting Policy
 * Privacy Policy
 * Disclaimer

 Contact Us

 ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200
 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

 Natalie Leppard
 Managing Editor
 procon@eb.com

 © 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
 All rights reserved

 * X
 * Home Page
 * All Issues / Topics
 + Topics A-Z
 + New Topics
 o Artificial Intelligence
 o Private Prisons
 o Space Colonization
 + Most Popular
 o Homework
 o Social Media
 o Death Penalty
 o School Uniforms
 o Video Games
 o Animal Testing
 o Gun Control
 o Zoos
 o Banned Books
 * About Us
 * FAQs
 * Teachers’ Corner

 Cite This Page

 ×

 ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

 * APA
 * Chicago
 * MLA
 * Turabian
 APA (7th ed.):
 ProCon.org. (2023, April 20). ProCon.org. ProCon.org. https://www.procon.org

 [Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

 Chicago (17th ed.):
 ProCon.org, "ProCon.org," ProCon.org. last modified April 20, 2023. https://www.procon.org/.
 MLA (9th ed.):
 ProCon.org, "ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 20 Apr. 2023, www.procon.org

 [Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

 Turabian (9th ed.):
 ProCon.org. "ProCon.org." ProCon.org. Last modified on April 20, 2023. Accessed May 18, 2023. https://www.procon.org/
Is the Internet Making YOU “Stupid”?   ** Take the ProCon Poll ** 
    By Category    Topics A-Z 
NEW TOPICS
 Cheerleading 
 Filibuster 
 Prescription Drug Costs 
 Dress Codes 
 Employer Vaccine Mandates 
 Artificial Intelligence 
 Private Prisons 
 Space Colonization 
 Pit Bull Bans 
 DC and Puerto Rico Statehood 
 Student Loan Debt 
 American Socialism 
 Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid?” 
SOCIETY
 Defund the Police 
 Cancel Culture 
 Historic Statue Removal  
 Kneeling during National Anthem 
 Pit Bull Bans 
 Dress Codes 
 Gay Marriage (archived 12/15/21)
EDUCATION
 School Uniforms 
 Homework 
 Animal Dissection 
 Student Loan Debt 
 Standardized Tests 
 Free College 
 College Education 
 School Vouchers 
 Corporal Punishment 
 Banned Books 
 Teacher Tenure (archived 11/28/22)
 Tablets vs. Textbooks (archived 11/28/22)
 D.A.R.E (archived 6/22/17)
GOVERNMENT
 Filibuster 
 Private Prisons 
 DC and Puerto Rico Statehood 
 American Socialism 
 US Supreme Court Packing 
 Death Penalty 
 Lower Drinking Age 
 Illegal Immigration 
 Gun Control 
 Recreational Marijuana Legalization 
 Mandatory National Service 
 Concealed Handguns 
 Sanctuary Cities 
 DACA &amp; Dreamers 
 Under God in the Pledge(archived 1/9/23)
 ACLU (archived 12/15/21)
 Prostitution Legalization (archived 12/15/21)
SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY
 Employer Vaccine Mandates 
 Artificial Intelligence 
 Space Colonization 
 Is the Internet “Making Us Stupid?” 
 Fracking 
 Animal Testing 
 Cell Phone Radiation 
 Alternative Energy 
 Climate Change 
 Net Neutrality 
 Police Body Cameras 
 Bottled Water Ban 
 Zoos 
 GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) 
 Dakota Access Oil Pipeline (archived 10/7/20)
 Born Gay (archived 10/19/20)
ELECTIONS &amp; PRESIDENTS
 Felon Voting 
 Electoral College 
 Lowering the Voting Age to 16 
 Election Day National Holiday 
 Voting Machines 
 Ronald Reagan (archived 10/16/20)
 Bill Clinton (archived 10/16/20)
 2008 Presidential Election (archived 1/19/09)
 2012 Presidential Election (archived 1/22/13)
 2016 Presidential Election (archived 1/21/17)
 2020 Presidential Election (archived 1/7/20)
ECONOMY &amp; TAXES
 Minimum Wage 
 Reparations for Slavery 
 Student Loan Debt 
 Gold Standard 
 Corporate Tax Rate 
 Churches and Taxes 
 Uber &amp; Lyft 
 Social Security Privatization 
 Universal Basic Income 
 Penny 
 Big Three Auto (archived 5/15/09)
 Insider Trading by Congress (archived 4/18/12)
HEALTH &amp; MEDICINE
 Medical Marijuana 
 Euthanasia &amp; Assisted Suicide 
 Vaping E-Cigarettes 
 Vaccines for Kids 
 Milk 
 OTC Birth Control 
 Abortion 
 Vegetarianism 
 Obesity 
 Right to Health Care 
 Prescription Drug Costs 
 Marijuana (CBD) for Pets 
 Obamacare (archived 10/14/20)
WORLD / INTERNATIONAL
 Cuba Embargo 
 Drone Strikes Overseas 
 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (archived 8/3/21)
 US Drone Shot Down by Iran (archived 10/15/20)
 US – Iraq War (archived 12/31/11)
 WTC Muslim Center (archived 6/3/13)
  Abortion – Should abortion be legal? 
  ACLU – Is the ACLU good for America? 
  Alternative Energy – Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? 
  American Socialism – Should the US become socialist? 
  Animal Dissection – Should K-12 students dissect animals in science classrooms? 
  Animal Testing – Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? 
  Artificial Intelligence – Is artificial intelligence good for society? 
  Banned Books – Should parents or other adults be able to ban books from schools and libraries? 
  Big Three Bailout – Should the big three car manufacturers be bailed out by the US government? 
  Binge-Watching – Is binge-watching good for you? 
  Born Gay – Is sexual orientation determined at birth? 
  Bottled Water Ban – Should bottled water be banned? 
  Cancel Culture – Is cancel culture (or callout culture) good for society? 
  CBD for Pets – Is CBD good for pets? 
  Cell Phone Radiation – Is cell phone radiation safe? 
  Cheerleading – Is cheerleading a sport? 
  Churches &amp; Taxes – Should churches (including mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt? 
  Climate Change – Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change? 
  College Education – Is a college education worth it? 
  College Football Playoffs – Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system? 
  Concealed Handguns – Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun? 
  Congressional Insider Trading – Should insider trading by Congress be allowed? 
  Corporal Punishment – Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools? 
  Corporate Tax Rate – Should the federal corporate income tax rate be raised? 
  Cuba Embargo – Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba? 
  DACA &amp; Dreamers – Are DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the DREAM Act good for America? 
  D.A.R.E. – Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America’s kids (K-12)? 
  Dakota Access Pipeline – Should the Dakota Access Pipeline be completed? 
  Daylight Saving Time – Should the United States keep daylight saving time? 
  DC AND Puerto Rico Statehood – Should Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico be granted US statehood? 
  Death Penalty – Should the death penalty be legal? 
  Dress Codes – Should dress codes be implemented and enforced? 
  Defund the Police – Should police departments be defunded, if not abolished?  
  Drinking Age – Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age? 
  Drone Strikes – Should the United States continue its use of drone strikes abroad? 
  Drug Use in Sports – Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports? 
  Election Day National Holiday – Should the election day be made a national holiday? 
  Electoral College – Should the United States use the Electoral College in presidential elections? 
  Employer Vaccine Mandates – Should employers be able to mandate vaccinations? 
  Felon Voting – Should people who have completed felony sentences be allowed to vote? 
  Fighting in Hockey – Should fighting be allowed in hockey? 
  Filibuster – Should the US Senate keep the filibuster? 
  Fracking – Should the United States continue fracking 
  Free College – Should public college be tuition-free? 
  Gay Marriage – Should gay marriage be legal? 
  Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – Should genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be grown? 
  Gold Standard – Should the United States return to a gold standard? 
  Golf – Is golf a sport and are golfers athletes? 
  Gun Control – Should more gun control laws be enacted? 
  Historic Statue Removal – Should historic statues be taken down? 
  Homework – Is homework beneficial? 
  Illegal Immigration – Should the government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? 
  Internet – Is the internet “making us stupid?” 
  Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 
  Kneeling during the National Anthem – Is kneeling during the national anthem an appropriate form of protest? 
  Mandatory National Service – Should the United States have mandatory national service? 
  Medical Marijuana – Should medical marijuana be legal? 
  Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) – Should medical aid in dying (MAID) be legal?? 
  Milk – Should humans consume dairy milk? 
  Minimum Wage – Should the federal minimum wage be increased? 
  Net Neutrality – Should the US have net neutrality laws?  
  Obamacare – Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America? 
  Obesity – Is obesity a disease? 
  Olympics – Are the Olympic games an overall benefit for their host countries and cities? 
  Over-the-Counter (OTC) Birth Control Pills – Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter (OTC)? 
  Paying College Athletes – Should colleges and universities pay college athletes? 
  Penny – Should the penny stay in circulation? 
  Pit Bull Bans – Should breed-specific legislation (“pit bull bans”) be enacted? 
  Pokémon – Is Pokémon Go good for our society? 
  Police Body Cameras – Should police officers wear body cameras? 
  Prescription Drug Costs – Should the US federal government regulate prescription drug prices? 
  President Bill Clinton – Was Bill Clinton a good president? 
  President Ronald Reagan – Was Ronald Reagan a good president? 
  Presidential Election, 2008 – Which candidate would make the best US president? 
  Presidential Election, 2012 – Which candidate should be US president in 2012? 
  Presidential Election, 2016 – The Candidates and Where They Stand on the Issues 
  Presidential Election, 2020 – 2020 Presidential Election Site 
  Private Prisons – Should prisons be privatized? 
  Prostitution – Should prostitution be legal? 
  Recreational Marijuana – Should recreational marijuana be legal? 
  Reparations for Slavery – Should the federal government pay reparations to the descendants of slaves? 
  Right to Healthcare – Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care? 
  Sanctuary Cities – Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding? 
  Santa Claus – Is there really a Santa Claus? 
  Saturday Halloween – Should Halloween be moved permanently to Saturday? 
  School Uniforms – Should students have to wear school uniforms? 
  School Vouchers – Should states have school voucher programs? 
  Social Media – Is social media good for society? 
  Social Security Privatization – Should social security be privatized? 
  Space Colonization – Should humans colonize space? 
  Standardized Tests – Do standardized tests improve education in America? 
  Student Loan Debt – Should student loan debt be eliminated via forgiveness or bankruptcy? 
  Tablets v. Textbooks -Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools? 
  Teacher Tenure – Should teachers get tenure? 
  Uber &amp; Lyft – Are ride-hailing companies a benefit to society? 
  Under God in the Pledge – Should the words “under god” be in the US Pledge of Allegiance? 
  US Drone Shot down by Iran – Was the US drone shot down by Iran over international waters? 
  Universal Basic Income (UBI) – Should the United States implement a universal basic income? 
  US-Iraq War – Should the US have attacked Iraq? 
  US Supreme Court Packing – Should packing the US Supreme Court ever be considered? 
  Vaccines for Kids – Should states be allowed to mandate vaccines for school attendance? 
 Vaping E-Cigarettes – Is vaping e-cigarettes safe? 
  Vegetarianism – Should people become vegetarian? 
  Video Games &amp; Violence – Do violent video games contribute to youth violence? 
  Voting Age – Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 
  Voting Machines – Are electronic voting machines the best method for voting? 
  WTC Muslim Center – Is it appropriate to build a muslim community center (aka the ”ground zero mosque”) near the World Trade Center site? 
  Zoos – Should zoos exist? 
 PROCON.ORG HEADLINES – Our Issues in the News 
OUR LATEST UPDATES
  Washington Officially Abolishes Death Penalty  
4/24/2023 -
 On Apr. 20, 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed Senate Bill 5087, which removed the laws the state supreme court found unconstitutionally, officially abolishing the death penalty in Washington. The states’s supreme court ruled the laws unconstitutional in 2018.
 Archived Notices (archived after 30 days)
ProCon.org - Pros and Cons of 100+ Topics
https://www.procon.org/
https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/politics-policy/
Politics & Policy - Research and data from Pew Research Center
2023-04-26
None
<div><div>
	<div>
	<div>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Apr 26, 2023</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/04/26/nearly-a-year-after-roes-demise-americans-views-of-abortion-access-increasingly-vary-by-where-they-live/">
 
 
 </a>
 
<p>In states where abortion is prohibited, the share of people who say access to abortion should be easier has increased since August 2019. A majority of residents in those states say it would be difficult to get an abortion in the area where they live today, up 21 points from four years ago.</p>
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Apr 7, 2023</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/04/07/in-divided-washington-americans-have-highly-negative-views-of-both-parties-leaders/">
 
 
 </a>
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Feb 6, 2023</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/02/06/economy-remains-the-publics-top-policy-priority-covid-19-concerns-decline-again/">
 
 
 </a>
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Jan 31, 2023</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/01/31/republicans-leery-of-compromise-with-biden-majority-want-gop-to-focus-on-investigations/">
 
 
 </a>
 
 </article>
 
 </div>	</div>
	<h3>All Politics &amp; Policy Publications</h3>
	<div><main>
	<div>
	<article>
	<p>report | May 17, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/">
	</a>
	<p>Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates. For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing. But relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. </p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | May 16, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/16/a-biden-trump-faceoff-in-2024-wouldnt-be-the-first-presidential-rematch/">
	</a>
	<p>If a Biden-Trump rematch comes about in 2024, it would be the seventh presidential rematch in U.S. history, and the first since the 1950s.</p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | May 15, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/15/in-us-and-elsewhere-most-say-their-country-will-be-better-off-embracing-changes-over-sticking-to-traditions/">
	</a>
	<p>Across the nations surveyed, a median of 62% of adults – including 63% in the United States – say their country will be better off if it is open to changes.</p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | May 10, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/10/most-us-parents-pass-along-their-religion-and-politics-to-their-children/">
	</a>
	<p>Most parents pass along religious and political affiliations, and they do so at similarly high rates, according to a new analysis of several surveys.</p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | May 10, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/10/americans-see-both-russia-and-china-in-a-negative-light-but-more-call-russia-an-enemy/">
	</a>
	<p>91% of Americans have unfavorable views of Russia and 83% have unfavorable views of China. </p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>report | May 10, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/05/10/americans-hold-positive-feelings-toward-nato-and-ukraine-see-russia-as-an-enemy/">
	</a>
	<p>Majorities of U.S. adults have favorable views of Ukraine (64%) and NATO (62%). About seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) say the U.S. should pay less attention to problems overseas and focus on concerns at home — up from 65% in 2021.</p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | May 5, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/05/narrow-majorities-in-u-s-house-have-become-more-common-but-havent-always-led-to-gridlock/">
	</a>
	<p>House Republicans held the fifth-smallest majority in U.S. history at the start of the current congress, tied with the 107th and 83rd Congresses. </p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | May 2, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/02/most-u-s-journalists-are-concerned-about-press-freedoms/">
	</a>
	<p>57% of U.S. journalists surveyed say they are extremely or very concerned about potential restrictions on press freedoms in the country. </p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>short read | Apr 28, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/28/5-facts-about-presidential-travel-abroad/">
	</a>
	<p>The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted international travel in 2020 and 2021, but diplomatic travel picked up significantly in 2022.</p>
	</article>
	<article>
	<p>report | Apr 26, 2023</p>	<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/04/26/nearly-a-year-after-roes-demise-americans-views-of-abortion-access-increasingly-vary-by-where-they-live/">
	</a>
	<p>In states where abortion is prohibited, the share of people who say access to abortion should be easier has increased since August 2019. A majority of residents in those states say it would be difficult to get an abortion in the area where they live today, up 21 points from four years ago.</p>
	</article>
	</div>
	
</main>
	</div>
	<div>
	
<div>
	<div>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Mar 14, 2019</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/">
 
 
 </a>
 
<p>Most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent stand out for their low level of interest in politics.</p>
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Nov 9, 2021</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/">
 
 
 </a>
 
<p>Pew Research Center’s political typology provides a roadmap to today’s fractured political landscape. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the 2021 survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions.</p>
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Jun 2, 2020</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/">
 
 
 </a>
 
<p>The gender gap in party identification remains the widest in a quarter century.</p>
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
 <article>
 <p>report | Dec 17, 2019</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/in-a-politically-polarized-era-sharp-divides-in-both-partisan-coalitions/">
 
 
 </a>
 
<p>Partisanship remains the strongest factor dividing the American public. Yet there are substantial divisions within both parties on fundamental political values, views of current issues and the severity of the problems facing the nation.</p>
 </article>
 
 </div>	</div>
<div>
	<div>
 
 <article>
 <p>feature | Oct 30, 2019</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/across-the-table-would-you-share-your-views-of-donald-trump-over-dinner/">
 
 
 </a>
 
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
 <article>
 <p>data essay | Mar 3, 2022</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/03/the-changing-political-geography-of-covid-19-over-the-last-two-years/">
 
 
 </a>
 
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
 <article>
 <p>feature | Dec 17, 2020</p> <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/12/17/voters-say-those-on-the-other-side-dont-get-them-heres-what-they-want-them-to-know/">
 
 
 </a>
 
 </article>
 
 </div>
 
 <div>
 
<figure></figure>
 <article>
 <p>feature | Nov 9, 2021</p>
 </article>
 
 </div>	</div>
	</div>
	
</div></div>||||I|||| Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
 Newsletters Press Donate My Account Contacted By Us?

 Read our research on: Asian Americans | Congress | Economy

 Research Topics
 All PublicationsMethodsShort ReadsTools & ResourcesExpertsAbout

 Topics

 Politics & PolicyInternational AffairsImmigration & MigrationRace & EthnicityReligionAge & GenerationsGender & LGBTQ
 Family & RelationshipsEconomy & WorkScienceInternet & TechnologyNews Habits & MediaMethodological ResearchFull topic list

 Regions & Countries

 Asia & the PacificEurope & RussiaLatin AmericaMiddle East & North AfricaNorth AmericaSub-Saharan AfricaMultiple Regions / Worldwide

 Formats

 FeaturesFact SheetsVideosData Essays
 Research Topics

 Topics

 Politics & PolicyInternational AffairsImmigration & MigrationRace & EthnicityReligionAge & GenerationsGender & LGBTQFamily & RelationshipsEconomy & WorkScienceInternet & TechnologyNews Habits & MediaMethodological ResearchFull topic list

 Regions & Countries

 Asia & the PacificEurope & RussiaLatin AmericaMiddle East & North AfricaNorth AmericaSub-Saharan AfricaMultiple Regions / Worldwide

 Formats

 FeaturesFact SheetsVideosData Essays
 All PublicationsMethodsShort ReadsTools & ResourcesExpertsAboutNewslettersPressMy AccountContacted By Us?
 DONATE

 Read our research on: Asian Americans | Congress | Economy

 Home Research Topics

 Politics & Policy

 Political Polarization
 U.S. Elections & Voters
 Joe Biden
 Donald Trump
 Politics & Media
 COVID-19 & Politics
 + More

 report | Apr 26, 2023

 Nearly a Year After Roe’s Demise, Americans’ Views of Abortion Access Increasingly Vary by Where They Live

 In states where abortion is prohibited, the share of people who say access to abortion should be easier has increased since August 2019. A majority of residents in those states say it would be difficult to get an abortion in the area where they live today, up 21 points from four years ago.

 report | Apr 7, 2023

 In Divided Washington, Americans Have Highly Negative Views of Both Parties’ Leaders

 report | Feb 6, 2023

 Economy Remains the Public’s Top Policy Priority; COVID-19 Concerns Decline Again

 report | Jan 31, 2023

 Republicans Leery of Compromise With Biden; Majority Want GOP To Focus on Investigations

 Sign up for our politics newsletter

 Our latest politics data every month

 Sign Up

 All Politics & Policy Publications

 report | May 17, 2023

 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace

 Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates. For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing. But relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace.

 short read | May 16, 2023

 A Biden-Trump faceoff in 2024 wouldn’t be the first presidential rematch

 If a Biden-Trump rematch comes about in 2024, it would be the seventh presidential rematch in U.S. history, and the first since the 1950s.

 short read | May 15, 2023

 In U.S. and elsewhere, most say their country will be better off embracing changes over sticking to traditions

 Across the nations surveyed, a median of 62% of adults – including 63% in the United States – say their country will be better off if it is open to changes.

 short read | May 10, 2023

 Most U.S. parents pass along their religion and politics to their children

 Most parents pass along religious and political affiliations, and they do so at similarly high rates, according to a new analysis of several surveys.

 short read | May 10, 2023

 Americans see both Russia and China in a negative light – but more call Russia an enemy

 91% of Americans have unfavorable views of Russia and 83% have unfavorable views of China.

 report | May 10, 2023

 Americans Hold Positive Feelings Toward NATO and Ukraine, See Russia as an Enemy

 Majorities of U.S. adults have favorable views of Ukraine (64%) and NATO (62%). About seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) say the U.S. should pay less attention to problems overseas and focus on concerns at home — up from 65% in 2021.

 short read | May 5, 2023

 Narrow majorities in U.S. House have become more common but haven’t always led to gridlock

 House Republicans held the fifth-smallest majority in U.S. history at the start of the current congress, tied with the 107th and 83rd Congresses.

 short read | May 2, 2023

 Most U.S. journalists are concerned about press freedoms

 57% of U.S. journalists surveyed say they are extremely or very concerned about potential restrictions on press freedoms in the country.

 short read | Apr 28, 2023

 5 facts about presidential travel abroad

 The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted international travel in 2020 and 2021, but diplomatic travel picked up significantly in 2022.

 report | Apr 26, 2023

 Nearly a Year After Roe’s Demise, Americans’ Views of Abortion Access Increasingly Vary by Where They Live

 In states where abortion is prohibited, the share of people who say access to abortion should be easier has increased since August 2019. A majority of residents in those states say it would be difficult to get an abortion in the area where they live today, up 21 points from four years ago.

 ← Prev Page
 You are reading page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10
 Next Page →

 Refine Your Results

 Loading...
 Loading values...

 Signature Reports

 report | Mar 14, 2019

 Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think

 Most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent stand out for their low level of interest in politics.

 report | Nov 9, 2021

 Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

 Pew Research Center’s political typology provides a roadmap to today’s fractured political landscape. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the 2021 survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions.

 report | Jun 2, 2020

 In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark Dividing Lines

 The gender gap in party identification remains the widest in a quarter century.

 report | Dec 17, 2019

 In a Politically Polarized Era, Sharp Divides in Both Partisan Coalitions

 Partisanship remains the strongest factor dividing the American public. Yet there are substantial divisions within both parties on fundamental political values, views of current issues and the severity of the problems facing the nation.

 Features

 feature | Oct 30, 2019

 Across the Table: Would you share your views of Donald Trump over dinner?

 data essay | Mar 3, 2022

 The Changing Political Geography of COVID-19 Over the Last Two Years

 feature | Dec 17, 2020

 Voters Say Those on the Other Side ‘Don’t Get’ Them. Here’s What They Want Them to Know.

 feature | Nov 9, 2021

 Quiz: Where do you fit in the political typology?


 1615 L St. NW, Suite 800
 Washington , DC 20036
 USA
 (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main
 (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax
 (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

 Research Topics
 Politics & PolicyInternational AffairsImmigration & MigrationRace & EthnicityReligionAge & GenerationsGender & LGBTQ
 Family & RelationshipsEconomy & WorkScienceInternet & TechnologyNews Habits & MediaMethodological ResearchFull topic list
 Follow Us
 Email Newsletters Facebook Twitter Tumblr YouTube RSS

 About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

 Copyright 2023 Pew Research Center About Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy Feedback Careers
report | Apr 26, 2023 
 
 
 
 
In states where abortion is prohibited, the share of people who say access to abortion should be easier has increased since August 2019. A majority of residents in those states say it would be difficult to get an abortion in the area where they live today, up 21 points from four years ago.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 report | Apr 7, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 report | Feb 6, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 report | Jan 31, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 	
	All Politics &amp; Policy Publications
	 
	
	
	report | May 17, 2023	
	
	Workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, or DEI, are increasingly becoming part of national political debates. For a majority of employed U.S. adults (56%), focusing on increasing DEI at work is a good thing. But relatively small shares of workers place a lot of importance on diversity at their workplace. 
	
	
	short read | May 16, 2023	
	
	If a Biden-Trump rematch comes about in 2024, it would be the seventh presidential rematch in U.S. history, and the first since the 1950s.
	
	
	short read | May 15, 2023	
	
	Across the nations surveyed, a median of 62% of adults – including 63% in the United States – say their country will be better off if it is open to changes.
	
	
	short read | May 10, 2023	
	
	Most parents pass along religious and political affiliations, and they do so at similarly high rates, according to a new analysis of several surveys.
	
	
	short read | May 10, 2023	
	
	91% of Americans have unfavorable views of Russia and 83% have unfavorable views of China. 
	
	
	report | May 10, 2023	
	
	Majorities of U.S. adults have favorable views of Ukraine (64%) and NATO (62%). About seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) say the U.S. should pay less attention to problems overseas and focus on concerns at home — up from 65% in 2021.
	
	
	short read | May 5, 2023	
	
	House Republicans held the fifth-smallest majority in U.S. history at the start of the current congress, tied with the 107th and 83rd Congresses. 
	
	
	short read | May 2, 2023	
	
	57% of U.S. journalists surveyed say they are extremely or very concerned about potential restrictions on press freedoms in the country. 
	
	
	short read | Apr 28, 2023	
	
	The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted international travel in 2020 and 2021, but diplomatic travel picked up significantly in 2022.
	
	
	report | Apr 26, 2023	
	
	In states where abortion is prohibited, the share of people who say access to abortion should be easier has increased since August 2019. A majority of residents in those states say it would be difficult to get an abortion in the area where they live today, up 21 points from four years ago.
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 
 
 report | Mar 14, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent stand out for their low level of interest in politics.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 report | Nov 9, 2021 
 
 
 
 
Pew Research Center’s political typology provides a roadmap to today’s fractured political landscape. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the 2021 survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 report | Jun 2, 2020 
 
 
 
 
The gender gap in party identification remains the widest in a quarter century.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 report | Dec 17, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Partisanship remains the strongest factor dividing the American public. Yet there are substantial divisions within both parties on fundamental political values, views of current issues and the severity of the problems facing the nation.
 
 
 	
	
 
 
 feature | Oct 30, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 data essay | Mar 3, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 feature | Dec 17, 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 feature | Nov 9, 2021
Politics & Policy - Research and data from Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/politics-policy/
https://perceptiongap.us/
The Perception Gap
2019-01-01
None
<div><div>
<h2>Findings</h2>
 <div>
 <p>
 
 </p>
 <p>
 
 </p>
 </div>
<p>Almost two-thirds of Americans describe themselves as either Democrats or Republicans, and with every passing year each side seems to dislike the other more and more. We trust each other less, we fear each other more, and we struggle to understand how those on the other side of the political fence could <em>possibly </em>hold so many wrong-headed views. </p>
<p>But with today’s personalized social media feeds and our tendency to live in bubbles of like-minded friends, are we getting each other wrong?  As part of its ongoing investigation into the root causes of political polarization, More in Common wanted to find out whether Republicans and Democrats could separate perception from reality.</p>
<p>To learn how well Americans understand each other, we partnered with global research firm YouGov to survey 2,100 Americans. On issues including climate change, patriotism, sexual assault, police conduct and more, we asked Americans what they themselves believed and what they estimated people on the other side believed. We were then able to calculate the difference between the predictions and reality.</p>
<p>The conclusion? Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America’s “Perception Gap”. Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents as reality hold views they consider “extreme”. Even on the most controversial issues in our national debates, Americans are less divided than most of us think. This is good news for those worried about the character of this country. The majority of Americans hold views that may not be so different from your own.  </p>
<h3>Democrats' Perception Gap</h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<h3>Republicans' Perception Gap</h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<p>So who has the largest Perception Gap? What factors might explain why one person has more distorted perceptions than another? Does this actually make us more hostile to each other, and what can we do about it? These are the questions we sought to answer.</p>
<h2>Widest Perception Gap at Political Extremes</h2>
<p>In one of the largest national studies of America’s polarization ever conducted, More in Common’s <a href="/hiddentribes.us">Hidden Tribes</a> report identified seven political “tribes”:</p>
<h4>The Hidden Tribes of America</h4>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<p>The Perception Gap study builds on these insights. It finds that the most partisan, politically active Americans – a group we call the “Wings” – have deeply distorted perceptions of the other side. The two groups with the widest Perception Gaps are the Progressive Activists and the Devoted Conservatives—the most ideological and committed groups of Democrats and Republicans. </p>
<p>And which is the most accurate segment? Surprisingly, it’s the Politically Disengaged. They are fully three times more accurate in their estimates of political opponents than members of either of these Wing groups. The V-shaped Perception Gap shows that the less invested you are in politics today, the less distorted your perception of politics.</p>
<h3><strong>V-Shaped Perception Gap</strong></h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<p>You might think that people who regularly read the news are more informed about their political opponents. In fact, the opposite is the case. We found that the more news people consumed, the larger their Perception Gap. People who said they read the news “most of the time” were nearly three times more distorted in their perceptions than those who said they read the news “only now and then.” We can’t prove that one causes the other, but these results suggest that rather than making Americans better informed, media coverage is now feeding our misperceptions.  </p>
<h3>Increased Media Consumption and the Perception Gap</h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<p>But not every media outlet is the same. We identified how specific news sources are associated with varying levels of distorted understanding in their audiences. Some news sources are associated with larger Perception Gaps, in particular Breitbart, Drudge Report and popular talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But large Perception Gaps are also associated with liberal sources such as Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Only one media source is associated with better understanding other Americans’ views: the traditional television networks of ABC, NBC and CBS. Overall, these findings suggest that media is adding to a polarization ecosystem that is driving Americans apart. </p>
<h3><strong>Media and the Widening Perception Gap </strong></h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<h2>Education Doesn’t Help, Either</h2>
<p>Education is intended to make us better informed about the world, so we’d expect that the more educated you become, the more you understand what other Americans think. In fact, the more educated a person is, the worse their Perception Gap – with one critical exception. This trend only holds true for Democrats, not Republicans. In other words, while Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn. This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree. </p>
<h3>Education and the Perception Gap</h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<p>Why do Democrats, as they become more educated, have a wider Perception Gap? The evidence suggests that it’s likely because they have fewer Republican friends. Highly educated Democrats are the most likely to say that “most of my friends” share their political beliefs. The same is not true of Republicans – more educated Republicans report having about as many Democrat friends as less educated Republicans. And Democrats whose friends are similar to them politically have a significantly wider Perception Gap than those with more political diversity in their friendship groups.  </p>
<h3>Friendship Diversity</h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<p>Social media platforms provide us a personalized way to receive news and commentary from anyone and everyone with whom we are connected. In theory, this could mean that users see a cross section of their community's political views, representing the full range of perspectives within their network. Unfortunately, our study's findings paint a less encouraging picture. First, only 26% of American report sharing social media posts about politics. Second, these Americans have higher Perception Gaps than the national average. While those who do not post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 18, those who <em>do post</em> on social media have an average Perception Gap of 29. The political content we see on social media is therefore disproportionately from people with a more distorted understanding of the other side, further adding to the problem. </p>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<h2>Perceiving Bad Intentions</h2>
<p>These findings matter because when people wrongly perceive others as extreme, they become more hostile towards them. The larger a person’s Perception Gap, the more negative their views are of the other side. People with large Perception Gaps are more likely to describe their opponents as “hateful,” “ignorant,” and “bigoted.” This points to the vicious cycle of polarization: the Americans who are most engaged in political issues and debates spend the most time reading, watching and listening to media that portrays the other side as extreme, further increasing their hostility and distrust and widening their Perception Gap.</p>
<h3><strong>Judging One's Opponents</strong></h3>
 <p>
 
 </p>
<h2>Conclusion: Why the Perception Gap Matters</h2>
<p>More than three quarters of Americans believe our differences are not so great that we cannot come together. Yet someone scrolling through a social media news feed, or switching on cable TV or talk radio could be convinced that we’re a country heading towards civil war. This study shows that an important source of this polarization is the false beliefs people have of their political opponents. The proportion of people who share similar views about many of our most hotly debated issues is greater than most Americans realize. While Americans do indeed hold different values and disagree on key issues, we underestimate how much more we have in common. </p>
<p>Why does this matter? Because when Democrats and Republicans believe their opponents hold extreme views, they become more threatened by each other. They start seeing each other as enemies, and start believing they need to win at all costs. They make excuses for their own side cheating and breaking the rules to beat the other side. And as our public debates become more hateful, many in the Exhausted Majority tune out altogether. This is how countries fall into a cycle of deepening polarization, and how democracies die. </p>
<p>Each of us can play a role in bridging the Perception Gap. We can choose a wider range of news sources to better understand different perspectives. We can refuse to be manipulated into outrage by reducing our exposure to social media feeds that amplify the views of the partisan Wings, rather than the Exhausted Majority. And finally, we can seek to build connections with people who think differently from us. Directly engaging with people whose experiences and views differ from our own makes it harder for us to see them as the enemy. </p>
<p>But individual action will likely not be enough. Civility alone will not resolve our disagreements or overcome the deep challenges that we need to address. That is because our analysis reveals a powerful polarization ecosystem that thrives off of outrage and division. Traditional media, social media platforms, friend networks, political candidates and consultants benefit from dividing Americans, exaggerating disagreements and inciting conflict. These forces of division must be held to account. In their place, we need to galvanize a larger ecosystem of local and national solutions that can bring us together and address the causes of our division. </p>
<p>A healthy democracy will always have some disagreement and conflict; it’s a necessary component of progress. But democracy also requires a sense of shared values and commitments, and a willingness to find common ground. This study suggests that there is more such territory than many imagine. By understanding our Perception Gaps, working to overcome our mistrust of the other side, and resisting the forces that seek to divide us, we can advance towards a future that we all want.</p> </div></div>||||I|||| * The Perception Gap
 * The Perception Gap Quiz
 * In The News
 * About
 * Download Report
 * 
 + 
 + 

 The Perception Gap

 Do you have a yawning Perception Gap, or are you in sync with the American public? Our study explores how Americans tend to have a distorted understanding of people on the other side of the aisle, what causes it, and why it matters.

 Take the Quiz

 See the Findings

 * Findings
 * Widest Perception Gap at Political Extremes
 * News Media Doesn’t Help
 * Education Doesn’t Help, Either
 * The Social Media Effect
 * Perceiving Bad Intentions
 * Conclusion: Why the Perception Gap Matters

 Findings

 Almost two-thirds of Americans describe themselves as either Democrats or Republicans, and with every passing year each side seems to dislike the other more and more. We trust each other less, we fear each other more, and we struggle to understand how those on the other side of the political fence could possibly hold so many wrong-headed views.

 But with today’s personalized social media feeds and our tendency to live in bubbles of like-minded friends, are we getting each other wrong? As part of its ongoing investigation into the root causes of political polarization, More in Common wanted to find out whether Republicans and Democrats could separate perception from reality.

 To learn how well Americans understand each other, we partnered with global research firm YouGov to survey 2,100 Americans. On issues including climate change, patriotism, sexual assault, police conduct and more, we asked Americans what they themselves believed and what they estimated people on the other side believed. We were then able to calculate the difference between the predictions and reality.

 The conclusion? Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America’s “ Perception Gap ”. Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents as reality hold views they consider “extreme”. Even on the most controversial issues in our national debates, Americans are less divided than most of us think. This is good news for those worried about the character of this country. The majority of Americans hold views that may not be so different from your own.

 Democrats' Perception Gap

 Republicans' Perception Gap

 So who has the largest Perception Gap? What factors might explain why one person has more distorted perceptions than another? Does this actually make us more hostile to each other, and what can we do about it? These are the questions we sought to answer.

 Widest Perception Gap at Political Extremes

 In one of the largest national studies of America’s polarization ever conducted, More in Common’s Hidden Tribes report identified seven political “tribes”:

 The Hidden Tribes of America

 The Perception Gap study builds on these insights. It finds that the most partisan, politically active Americans – a group we call the “Wings” – have deeply distorted perceptions of the other side. The two groups with the widest Perception Gaps are the Progressive Activists and the Devoted Conservatives—the most ideological and committed groups of Democrats and Republicans.

 And which is the most accurate segment? Surprisingly, it’s the Politically Disengaged. They are fully three times more accurate in their estimates of political opponents than members of either of these Wing groups. The V-shaped Perception Gap shows that the less invested you are in politics today, the less distorted your perception of politics.

 V-Shaped Perception Gap

 News Media Doesn’t Help

 You might think that people who regularly read the news are more informed about their political opponents. In fact, the opposite is the case. We found that the more news people consumed, the larger their Perception Gap. People who said they read the news “most of the time” were nearly three times more distorted in their perceptions than those who said they read the news “only now and then.” We can’t prove that one causes the other, but these results suggest that rather than making Americans better informed, media coverage is now feeding our misperceptions.

 Increased Media Consumption and the Perception Gap

 But not every media outlet is the same. We identified how specific news sources are associated with varying levels of distorted understanding in their audiences. Some news sources are associated with larger Perception Gaps, in particular Breitbart, Drudge Report and popular talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But large Perception Gaps are also associated with liberal sources such as Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Only one media source is associated with better understanding other Americans’ views: the traditional television networks of ABC, NBC and CBS. Overall, these findings suggest that media is adding to a polarization ecosystem that is driving Americans apart.

 Media and the Widening Perception Gap

 Education Doesn’t Help, Either

 Education is intended to make us better informed about the world, so we’d expect that the more educated you become, the more you understand what other Americans think. In fact, the more educated a person is, the worse their Perception Gap – with one critical exception. This trend only holds true for Democrats, not Republicans. In other words, while Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn. This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.

 Education and the Perception Gap

 Why do Democrats, as they become more educated, have a wider Perception Gap? The evidence suggests that it’s likely because they have fewer Republican friends. Highly educated Democrats are the most likely to say that “most of my friends” share their political beliefs. The same is not true of Republicans – more educated Republicans report having about as many Democrat friends as less educated Republicans. And Democrats whose friends are similar to them politically have a significantly wider Perception Gap than those with more political diversity in their friendship groups.

 Friendship Diversity

 The Social Media Effect

 Social media platforms provide us a personalized way to receive news and commentary from anyone and everyone with whom we are connected. In theory, this could mean that users see a cross section of their community's political views, representing the full range of perspectives within their network. Unfortunately, our study's findings paint a less encouraging picture. First, only 26% of American report sharing social media posts about politics. Second, these Americans have higher Perception Gaps than the national average. While those who do not post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 18, those who do post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 29. The political content we see on social media is therefore disproportionately from people with a more distorted understanding of the other side, further adding to the problem.

 Perceiving Bad Intentions

 These findings matter because when people wrongly perceive others as extreme, they become more hostile towards them. The larger a person’s Perception Gap, the more negative their views are of the other side. People with large Perception Gaps are more likely to describe their opponents as “hateful,” “ignorant,” and “bigoted.” This points to the vicious cycle of polarization: the Americans who are most engaged in political issues and debates spend the most time reading, watching and listening to media that portrays the other side as extreme, further increasing their hostility and distrust and widening their Perception Gap.

 Judging One's Opponents

 Conclusion: Why the Perception Gap Matters

 More than three quarters of Americans believe our differences are not so great that we cannot come together. Yet someone scrolling through a social media news feed, or switching on cable TV or talk radio could be convinced that we’re a country heading towards civil war. This study shows that an important source of this polarization is the false beliefs people have of their political opponents. The proportion of people who share similar views about many of our most hotly debated issues is greater than most Americans realize. While Americans do indeed hold different values and disagree on key issues, we underestimate how much more we have in common.

 Why does this matter? Because when Democrats and Republicans believe their opponents hold extreme views, they become more threatened by each other. They start seeing each other as enemies, and start believing they need to win at all costs. They make excuses for their own side cheating and breaking the rules to beat the other side. And as our public debates become more hateful, many in the Exhausted Majority tune out altogether. This is how countries fall into a cycle of deepening polarization, and how democracies die.

 Each of us can play a role in bridging the Perception Gap. We can choose a wider range of news sources to better understand different perspectives. We can refuse to be manipulated into outrage by reducing our exposure to social media feeds that amplify the views of the partisan Wings, rather than the Exhausted Majority. And finally, we can seek to build connections with people who think differently from us. Directly engaging with people whose experiences and views differ from our own makes it harder for us to see them as the enemy.

 But individual action will likely not be enough. Civility alone will not resolve our disagreements or overcome the deep challenges that we need to address. That is because our analysis reveals a powerful polarization ecosystem that thrives off of outrage and division. Traditional media, social media platforms, friend networks, political candidates and consultants benefit from dividing Americans, exaggerating disagreements and inciting conflict. These forces of division must be held to account. In their place, we need to galvanize a larger ecosystem of local and national solutions that can bring us together and address the causes of our division.

 A healthy democracy will always have some disagreement and conflict; it’s a necessary component of progress. But democracy also requires a sense of shared values and commitments, and a willingness to find common ground. This study suggests that there is more such territory than many imagine. By understanding our Perception Gaps, working to overcome our mistrust of the other side, and resisting the forces that seek to divide us, we can advance towards a future that we all want.

 © 2019 More in Common. All rights reserved.

 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookie Policy
Findings
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Almost two-thirds of Americans describe themselves as either Democrats or Republicans, and with every passing year each side seems to dislike the other more and more. We trust each other less, we fear each other more, and we struggle to understand how those on the other side of the political fence could possibly hold so many wrong-headed views. 
But with today’s personalized social media feeds and our tendency to live in bubbles of like-minded friends, are we getting each other wrong?  As part of its ongoing investigation into the root causes of political polarization, More in Common wanted to find out whether Republicans and Democrats could separate perception from reality.
To learn how well Americans understand each other, we partnered with global research firm YouGov to survey 2,100 Americans. On issues including climate change, patriotism, sexual assault, police conduct and more, we asked Americans what they themselves believed and what they estimated people on the other side believed. We were then able to calculate the difference between the predictions and reality.
The conclusion? Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America’s “Perception Gap”. Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents as reality hold views they consider “extreme”. Even on the most controversial issues in our national debates, Americans are less divided than most of us think. This is good news for those worried about the character of this country. The majority of Americans hold views that may not be so different from your own.  
Democrats' Perception Gap
 
 
 
Republicans' Perception Gap
 
 
 
So who has the largest Perception Gap? What factors might explain why one person has more distorted perceptions than another? Does this actually make us more hostile to each other, and what can we do about it? These are the questions we sought to answer.
Widest Perception Gap at Political Extremes
In one of the largest national studies of America’s polarization ever conducted, More in Common’s Hidden Tribes report identified seven political “tribes”:
The Hidden Tribes of America
 
 
 
The Perception Gap study builds on these insights. It finds that the most partisan, politically active Americans – a group we call the “Wings” – have deeply distorted perceptions of the other side. The two groups with the widest Perception Gaps are the Progressive Activists and the Devoted Conservatives—the most ideological and committed groups of Democrats and Republicans. 
And which is the most accurate segment? Surprisingly, it’s the Politically Disengaged. They are fully three times more accurate in their estimates of political opponents than members of either of these Wing groups. The V-shaped Perception Gap shows that the less invested you are in politics today, the less distorted your perception of politics.
 V-Shaped Perception Gap 
 
 
 
You might think that people who regularly read the news are more informed about their political opponents. In fact, the opposite is the case. We found that the more news people consumed, the larger their Perception Gap. People who said they read the news “most of the time” were nearly three times more distorted in their perceptions than those who said they read the news “only now and then.” We can’t prove that one causes the other, but these results suggest that rather than making Americans better informed, media coverage is now feeding our misperceptions.  
Increased Media Consumption and the Perception Gap
 
 
 
But not every media outlet is the same. We identified how specific news sources are associated with varying levels of distorted understanding in their audiences. Some news sources are associated with larger Perception Gaps, in particular Breitbart, Drudge Report and popular talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But large Perception Gaps are also associated with liberal sources such as Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Only one media source is associated with better understanding other Americans’ views: the traditional television networks of ABC, NBC and CBS. Overall, these findings suggest that media is adding to a polarization ecosystem that is driving Americans apart. 
 Media and the Widening Perception Gap  
 
 
 
Education Doesn’t Help, Either
Education is intended to make us better informed about the world, so we’d expect that the more educated you become, the more you understand what other Americans think. In fact, the more educated a person is, the worse their Perception Gap – with one critical exception. This trend only holds true for Democrats, not Republicans. In other words, while Republicans’ misperceptions of Democrats do not improve with higher levels of education, Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every additional degree they earn. This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree. 
Education and the Perception Gap
 
 
 
Why do Democrats, as they become more educated, have a wider Perception Gap? The evidence suggests that it’s likely because they have fewer Republican friends. Highly educated Democrats are the most likely to say that “most of my friends” share their political beliefs. The same is not true of Republicans – more educated Republicans report having about as many Democrat friends as less educated Republicans. And Democrats whose friends are similar to them politically have a significantly wider Perception Gap than those with more political diversity in their friendship groups.  
Friendship Diversity
 
 
 
Social media platforms provide us a personalized way to receive news and commentary from anyone and everyone with whom we are connected. In theory, this could mean that users see a cross section of their community's political views, representing the full range of perspectives within their network. Unfortunately, our study's findings paint a less encouraging picture. First, only 26% of American report sharing social media posts about politics. Second, these Americans have higher Perception Gaps than the national average. While those who do not post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 18, those who do post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 29. The political content we see on social media is therefore disproportionately from people with a more distorted understanding of the other side, further adding to the problem. 
 
 
 
Perceiving Bad Intentions
These findings matter because when people wrongly perceive others as extreme, they become more hostile towards them. The larger a person’s Perception Gap, the more negative their views are of the other side. People with large Perception Gaps are more likely to describe their opponents as “hateful,” “ignorant,” and “bigoted.” This points to the vicious cycle of polarization: the Americans who are most engaged in political issues and debates spend the most time reading, watching and listening to media that portrays the other side as extreme, further increasing their hostility and distrust and widening their Perception Gap.
 Judging One's Opponents 
 
 
 
Conclusion: Why the Perception Gap Matters
More than three quarters of Americans believe our differences are not so great that we cannot come together. Yet someone scrolling through a social media news feed, or switching on cable TV or talk radio could be convinced that we’re a country heading towards civil war. This study shows that an important source of this polarization is the false beliefs people have of their political opponents. The proportion of people who share similar views about many of our most hotly debated issues is greater than most Americans realize. While Americans do indeed hold different values and disagree on key issues, we underestimate how much more we have in common. 
Why does this matter? Because when Democrats and Republicans believe their opponents hold extreme views, they become more threatened by each other. They start seeing each other as enemies, and start believing they need to win at all costs. They make excuses for their own side cheating and breaking the rules to beat the other side. And as our public debates become more hateful, many in the Exhausted Majority tune out altogether. This is how countries fall into a cycle of deepening polarization, and how democracies die. 
Each of us can play a role in bridging the Perception Gap. We can choose a wider range of news sources to better understand different perspectives. We can refuse to be manipulated into outrage by reducing our exposure to social media feeds that amplify the views of the partisan Wings, rather than the Exhausted Majority. And finally, we can seek to build connections with people who think differently from us. Directly engaging with people whose experiences and views differ from our own makes it harder for us to see them as the enemy. 
But individual action will likely not be enough. Civility alone will not resolve our disagreements or overcome the deep challenges that we need to address. That is because our analysis reveals a powerful polarization ecosystem that thrives off of outrage and division. Traditional media, social media platforms, friend networks, political candidates and consultants benefit from dividing Americans, exaggerating disagreements and inciting conflict. These forces of division must be held to account. In their place, we need to galvanize a larger ecosystem of local and national solutions that can bring us together and address the causes of our division. 
A healthy democracy will always have some disagreement and conflict; it’s a necessary component of progress. But democracy also requires a sense of shared values and commitments, and a willingness to find common ground. This study suggests that there is more such territory than many imagine. By understanding our Perception Gaps, working to overcome our mistrust of the other side, and resisting the forces that seek to divide us, we can advance towards a future that we all want.
The Perception Gap
https://perceptiongap.us/
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/perspectives
Perspectives on Politics
2024-03-08
None
<div><div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/TOLS5V"></a>
</p></div>
<p><a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/TOLS5V">
</a>
</p><p></p><p>Kaufman, Robert R.; Kelemen, Daniel R.; Kolcak, Burcu, 2024, "Replication Data for: Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TOLS5V">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TOLS5V</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:81gKqrC3Gq32zPynskdYLg== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>Replication Data for Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/GO0VG6"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Alexseev, Mikhail; Dembitskyi, Serhii, 2024, "Replication Data for: Geosocietal Support for Democracy: Survey Evidence from Ukraine", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GO0VG6">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GO0VG6</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:ufKpkvE+HlgCt1ifgRm9/g== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>We examine why public support for democracy in Ukraine increased after Russia’s 2014 intervention and surged after Russia’s 2022 invasion – despite concerns that wartime quest for security diminishes support for political freedoms. We statistically analyze original data generated...</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/OCXAW5"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Emanuele, Vincenzo, 2024, "Replication Data for: Emanuele, V. and Trastulli, F. (2024) 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' Perspectives on Politics.", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OCXAW5">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OCXAW5</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:udzqd0YvgiFYnKB6cekkdA== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>This repository includes the dataset and the .do file to replicate table and figures of the manuscript 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' (Emanuele and Trastulli 2024).</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/QZNVZ0"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Yuner Zhu; Edmund W. Cheng, 2024, "Multidimensional Diversity and Research Impact in Political Science: What 50 Years of Bibliometric Data Tells Us", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QZNVZ0">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QZNVZ0</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:nLreEcX6XaWpjpNc9lSLCw== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>This study examines the changing patterns of knowledge production and diffusion in political science over the past five decades using a dataset of over 200,000 SSCI-indexed research articles from 1970 to 2020. We analyze how author identity and four types of team diversity (namel...</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/QIY9EM"></a>
</p></div>
<p><a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/QIY9EM">
</a>
</p><p></p><p>Gray, Thomas R.; Jenkins, Jeffery A., 2024, "Replication Data for: "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970"", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QIY9EM">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QIY9EM</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:HmH+8IucdNG+LwX+Y27oiw== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>These files allow one to reproduce the results presented in the paper and online appendix of "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970," by Thomas R. Gray and Jeffery A. Jenkins.</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VWBW5P"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Joyce, Renanah Miles; Fortna, 2024, "Replication Data for: Extremism and Terrorism: Rebel Goals and Tactics in Civil Wars", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VWBW5P">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VWBW5P</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:v7NnrRVEnmfjPvsxkJhDiw== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>Extremism and terrorism are thought to go hand-in-hand in civil wars. Do they? Are rebel groups with more extreme goals more likely than moderate ones to employ terrorism? Understanding the relationship between what groups want and how they try to achieve it has obvious theoretic...</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/5AJMSL"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Kelly-Thompson, Kaitlin; Lusvardi, Amber; Forester, Summer; Weldon, S. Laurel, 2024, "Replication Data for: Dimensions of Transnational Feminism: Autonomous Organizing, Multilateralism and Agenda-Setting in Global Civil Society", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5AJMSL">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5AJMSL</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:9Ge7FTG1AvTqL2Tsaj7qKw== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>The importance and impact of feminist mobilization across borders is well documented, but the impact of autonomy as an aspect of such organizing has not been explored in the transnational context. We argue that to understand the impact of transnational feminist mobilization, at l...</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/ABGCKD"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2024, "Replication Data for: Populist Attitudes Among Teenagers: How Negative Relationships with Socialization Agents are Linked to Populist Attitudes", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ABGCKD">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ABGCKD</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1
 </p><p>While the origins and consequences of populist attitudes in adults are being studied extensively, it is still unknown when populist attitudes might emerge in a person's life. Drawing on the existing literature on political socialization, we focus on populist attitudes during adol...</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VLPMP2"></a>
</p></div>
<p></p><p>Thompson, Andrew, 2024, "Replication data for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy."", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VLPMP2">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VLPMP2</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:fzdNJGpfmiu3MRSP04N8Cg== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>Replication materials for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy" in Perspectives on Politics</p></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><div>
<div>
<p>
<a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/TKYUR6"></a>
</p></div>
<p><a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/TKYUR6">
</a>
</p><p></p><p>Pepinsky, Thomas; Reiff, Ádám; Szabó, Krisztina, 2024, "Replication Data for: The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary", <a href="https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TKYUR6">https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TKYUR6</a>, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:sa9ljcGK5zTGU6fFnzDKkA== [fileUNF]
 </p><p>This is the replication data and stata .do files for for The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary, Perspectives on Politics</p></div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div></div>||||I||||Skip to main content
 Toggle navigation
 * Add Data
 + New Dataset
 * Search
 + Search
 * About
 * User Guide
 * Support
 * Sign Up
 * Log In
 Please enable JavaScript in your browser. It is required to use most of the features of Dataverse.

 Perspectives on Politics

 (Cambridge University Press)
 Journal site
 Harvard Dataverse
 >
 Contact Share
 Perspectives on Politics seeks to provide a space for broad and synthetic discussion within the political science profession and between the profession and the broader scholarly and reading publics. Such discussion necessarily draws on and contributes to the scholarship published in the more specialized journals that dominate our discipline. At the same time, Perspectives seeks to promote a complementary form of broad public discussion and synergistic understanding within the profession that is essential to advancing research and promoting scholarly community. Perspectives seeks to nurture a political science public sphere, publicizing important scholarly topics, ideas, and innovations, linking scholarly authors and readers, and promoting broad reflexive discussion among political scientists about the work that we do and why this work matters.

 For more information on the journal’s submission process, please visit Perspectives Submission Guidelines. For authors who are submitting replication files, please see the Perspectives Guide to Dataverse.
 Featured Dataverses

 In order to use this feature you must have at least one published dataverse.

 Close
 Publish Dataverse

 Are you sure you want to publish your dataverse? Once you do so it must remain published.

 Continue Cancel
 Publish Dataverse

 This dataverse cannot be published because the dataverse it is in has not been published.

 Close
 Delete Dataverse

 Are you sure you want to delete your dataverse? You cannot undelete this dataverse.

 Continue Cancel
 Advanced Search
 Add Data
 Dataverses (0)
 Datasets (204)
 Files (2,057)
 * Publication Year
 + 2024 (18)
 + 2023 (23)
 + 2022 (27)
 + 2021 (43)
 + 2020 (43)
 * More...
 
 * Subject
 + Social Sciences (204)
 + Law (3)
 + Medicine, Health and Life Sciences (1)
 * Author Name
 + Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander (3)
 + Barrie, Christopher (2)
 + Einstein, Katherine Levine (2)
 + Emanuele, Vincenzo (2)
 + Gerring, John (2)
 * More...
 
 * Author Affiliation
 + University of California, Berkeley (9)
 + Cornell University (7)
 + University of Oxford (7)
 + Duke University (6)
 + Harvard University (6)
 * More...
 

 Filter Results

 1 to 10 of 204 Results
 Sort
 * Name (A-Z)
 * Name (Z-A)
 * Newest
 * Oldest
 Replication Data for: Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective    
 Apr 29, 2024     
 Kaufman, Robert R.; Kelemen, Daniel R.; Kolcak, Burcu, 2024, "Replication Data for: Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TOLS5V, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:81gKqrC3Gq32zPynskdYLg== [fileUNF]  
 Replication Data for Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective    
 Replication Data for: Geosocietal Support for Democracy: Survey Evidence from Ukraine    
 Apr 29, 2024     
 Alexseev, Mikhail; Dembitskyi, Serhii, 2024, "Replication Data for: Geosocietal Support for Democracy: Survey Evidence from Ukraine", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GO0VG6, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:ufKpkvE+HlgCt1ifgRm9/g== [fileUNF]  
 We examine why public support for democracy in Ukraine increased after Russia’s 2014 intervention and surged after Russia’s 2022 invasion – despite concerns that wartime quest for security diminishes support for political freedoms. We statistically analyze original data generated... 
 Replication Data for: Emanuele, V. and Trastulli, F. (2024) 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' Perspectives on Politics.   
 Apr 29, 2024     
 Emanuele, Vincenzo, 2024, "Replication Data for: Emanuele, V. and Trastulli, F. (2024) 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' Perspectives on Politics.", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OCXAW5, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:udzqd0YvgiFYnKB6cekkdA== [fileUNF] 
 This repository includes the dataset and the .do file to replicate table and figures of the manuscript 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' (Emanuele and Trastulli 2024).  
 Multidimensional Diversity and Research Impact in Political Science: What 50 Years of Bibliometric Data Tells Us    
 Apr 29, 2024     
 Yuner Zhu; Edmund W. Cheng, 2024, "Multidimensional Diversity and Research Impact in Political Science: What 50 Years of Bibliometric Data Tells Us", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QZNVZ0, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:nLreEcX6XaWpjpNc9lSLCw== [fileUNF]  
 This study examines the changing patterns of knowledge production and diffusion in political science over the past five decades using a dataset of over 200,000 SSCI-indexed research articles from 1970 to 2020. We analyze how author identity and four types of team diversity (namel... 
 Replication Data for: "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970"    
 Apr 29, 2024     
 Gray, Thomas R.; Jenkins, Jeffery A., 2024, "Replication Data for: "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970"", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QIY9EM, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:HmH+8IucdNG+LwX+Y27oiw== [fileUNF]  
 These files allow one to reproduce the results presented in the paper and online appendix of "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970," by Thomas R. Gray and Jeffery A. Jenkins.   
 Replication Data for: Extremism and Terrorism: Rebel Goals and Tactics in Civil Wars    
 Apr 8, 2024     
 Joyce, Renanah Miles; Fortna, 2024, "Replication Data for: Extremism and Terrorism: Rebel Goals and Tactics in Civil Wars", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VWBW5P, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:v7NnrRVEnmfjPvsxkJhDiw== [fileUNF]  
 Extremism and terrorism are thought to go hand-in-hand in civil wars. Do they? Are rebel groups with more extreme goals more likely than moderate ones to employ terrorism? Understanding the relationship between what groups want and how they try to achieve it has obvious theoretic... 
 Replication Data for: Dimensions of Transnational Feminism: Autonomous Organizing, Multilateralism and Agenda-Setting in Global Civil Society   
 Apr 8, 2024     
 Kelly-Thompson, Kaitlin; Lusvardi, Amber; Forester, Summer; Weldon, S. Laurel, 2024, "Replication Data for: Dimensions of Transnational Feminism: Autonomous Organizing, Multilateralism and Agenda-Setting in Global Civil Society", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5AJMSL, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:9Ge7FTG1AvTqL2Tsaj7qKw== [fileUNF]
 The importance and impact of feminist mobilization across borders is well documented, but the impact of autonomy as an aspect of such organizing has not been explored in the transnational context. We argue that to understand the impact of transnational feminist mobilization, at l... 
 Replication Data for: Populist Attitudes Among Teenagers: How Negative Relationships with Socialization Agents are Linked to Populist Attitudes   
 Mar 26, 2024     
 Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2024, "Replication Data for: Populist Attitudes Among Teenagers: How Negative Relationships with Socialization Agents are Linked to Populist Attitudes", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ABGCKD, Harvard Dataverse, V1  
 While the origins and consequences of populist attitudes in adults are being studied extensively, it is still unknown when populist attitudes might emerge in a person's life. Drawing on the existing literature on political socialization, we focus on populist attitudes during adol... 
 Replication data for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy."    
 Mar 17, 2024     
 Thompson, Andrew, 2024, "Replication data for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy."", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VLPMP2, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:fzdNJGpfmiu3MRSP04N8Cg== [fileUNF]  
 Replication materials for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy" in Perspectives on Politics   
 Replication Data for: The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary    
 Mar 8, 2024     
 Pepinsky, Thomas; Reiff, Ádám; Szabó, Krisztina, 2024, "Replication Data for: The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TKYUR6, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:sa9ljcGK5zTGU6fFnzDKkA== [fileUNF] 
 This is the replication data and stata .do files for for The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary, Perspectives on Politics   
 
 * «
 * < Previous
 * 1 (Current)
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * Next >
 * »
 Add Data

 Sign up or log in to create a dataverse or add a dataset.

 Sign Up Log In
 Share Dataverse

 Share this dataverse on your favorite social media networks.

 Close
 Link Dataverse
 Reset Modifications

 Are you sure you want to reset the selected metadata fields? If you do this, any customizations (hidden, required, optional) you have done will no longer appear.

 Continue Cancel

 Copyright © 2024, The President & Fellows of Harvard College | Privacy Policy

 Powered by v. 6.1 build iqss-prod-patch
 Feedback
 Contact Harvard Dataverse Support
 To

 Harvard Dataverse Support

 From
 Subject
 Message

 Please fill this out to prove you are not a robot.

 + =
 Send Message Cancel
Kaufman, Robert R.; Kelemen, Daniel R.; Kolcak, Burcu, 2024, "Replication Data for: Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TOLS5V, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:81gKqrC3Gq32zPynskdYLg== [fileUNF]
  Replication Data for Federalism and Democratic Backsliding from a Comparative Perspective  
 
 
 
  Alexseev, Mikhail; Dembitskyi, Serhii, 2024, "Replication Data for: Geosocietal Support for Democracy: Survey Evidence from Ukraine", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GO0VG6, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:ufKpkvE+HlgCt1ifgRm9/g== [fileUNF]
  We examine why public support for democracy in Ukraine increased after Russia’s 2014 intervention and surged after Russia’s 2022 invasion – despite concerns that wartime quest for security diminishes support for political freedoms. We statistically analyze original data generated...  
 
 
 
  Emanuele, Vincenzo, 2024, "Replication Data for: Emanuele, V. and Trastulli, F. (2024) 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' Perspectives on Politics.", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OCXAW5, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:udzqd0YvgiFYnKB6cekkdA== [fileUNF]
  This repository includes the dataset and the .do file to replicate table and figures of the manuscript 'Left governmental power and the reduction of inequalities in Western Europe (1871-2020)' (Emanuele and Trastulli 2024).  
 
 
 
  Yuner Zhu; Edmund W. Cheng, 2024, "Multidimensional Diversity and Research Impact in Political Science: What 50 Years of Bibliometric Data Tells Us", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QZNVZ0, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:nLreEcX6XaWpjpNc9lSLCw== [fileUNF]
  This study examines the changing patterns of knowledge production and diffusion in political science over the past five decades using a dataset of over 200,000 SSCI-indexed research articles from 1970 to 2020. We analyze how author identity and four types of team diversity (namel...  
 
 
 
 
   Gray, Thomas R.; Jenkins, Jeffery A., 2024, "Replication Data for: "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970"", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QIY9EM, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:HmH+8IucdNG+LwX+Y27oiw== [fileUNF]
  These files allow one to reproduce the results presented in the paper and online appendix of "Estimating Disenfranchisement in U.S. Elections, 1870-1970," by Thomas R. Gray and Jeffery A. Jenkins.  
 
 
 
  Joyce, Renanah Miles; Fortna, 2024, "Replication Data for: Extremism and Terrorism: Rebel Goals and Tactics in Civil Wars", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VWBW5P, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:v7NnrRVEnmfjPvsxkJhDiw== [fileUNF]
  Extremism and terrorism are thought to go hand-in-hand in civil wars. Do they? Are rebel groups with more extreme goals more likely than moderate ones to employ terrorism? Understanding the relationship between what groups want and how they try to achieve it has obvious theoretic...  
 
 
 
  Kelly-Thompson, Kaitlin; Lusvardi, Amber; Forester, Summer; Weldon, S. Laurel, 2024, "Replication Data for: Dimensions of Transnational Feminism: Autonomous Organizing, Multilateralism and Agenda-Setting in Global Civil Society", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5AJMSL, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:9Ge7FTG1AvTqL2Tsaj7qKw== [fileUNF]
  The importance and impact of feminist mobilization across borders is well documented, but the impact of autonomy as an aspect of such organizing has not been explored in the transnational context. We argue that to understand the impact of transnational feminist mobilization, at l...  
 
 
 
  Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2024, "Replication Data for: Populist Attitudes Among Teenagers: How Negative Relationships with Socialization Agents are Linked to Populist Attitudes", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ABGCKD, Harvard Dataverse, V1
  While the origins and consequences of populist attitudes in adults are being studied extensively, it is still unknown when populist attitudes might emerge in a person's life. Drawing on the existing literature on political socialization, we focus on populist attitudes during adol...  
 
 
 
  Thompson, Andrew, 2024, "Replication data for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy."", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VLPMP2, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:fzdNJGpfmiu3MRSP04N8Cg== [fileUNF]
  Replication materials for "Anti-Black Political Violence and the Historical Legacy of the Great Replacement Conspiracy" in Perspectives on Politics  
 
 
 
 
   Pepinsky, Thomas; Reiff, Ádám; Szabó, Krisztina, 2024, "Replication Data for: The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TKYUR6, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:sa9ljcGK5zTGU6fFnzDKkA== [fileUNF]
  This is the replication data and stata .do files for for The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and the Politics of Public Opinion: Evidence from Hungary, Perspectives on Politics
Perspectives on Politics
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/perspectives
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/learning/why-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html
Why Is It Important for People With Different Political Beliefs to Talk to Each Other?
2019-10-07
Shannon Doyne
<div><div><div><p></p><div><p></p></div></div><article><div><nav><ul><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li><li></li></ul></nav></div><div><p>Advertisement</p><p><a href="#after-top">SKIP ADVERTISEMENT</a></p></div><div><p>You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.</p></div><header><p>student opinion</p><p>What can we learn by interacting with people who have completely different life experiences than we do?</p><div><figure><p></p><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div></header><div><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/column/learning-student-opinion">Find all our Student Opinion questions here.</a> </p><p>Would you want to spend a few days sitting down with people and talking about issues that are important to voters in the United States? What if the people came from all corners of the political spectrum? </p><p>How do you think the conversations would go? How do you think you would handle yourself in talking with someone with whom you vehemently disagree? Why?</p><p>In “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/02/upshot/these-526-voters-represent-america.html">These 526 Voters Represent All of America. And They Spent a Weekend Together</a>,” Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy write about the event called “America in One Room”:</p><blockquote><p>GRAPEVINE, TEX. — The voters arrived from all over the country: nine of them named John, 10 who’d come from mobile homes, four who lived in South Dakota. Twenty-seven considered themselves extremely conservative; 30 said they were extremely liberal. Twenty-one were out of work and looking for it. Two came with service dogs. At least one did not tell her parents she was coming here, because talking politics is so hard at home that she didn’t want to admit she was flying to Texas to talk politics with people she didn’t know.</p><p>These voters — 526 total, representative of Americans who are registered to vote — were invited to spend a weekend in a resort outside Dallas to prove that there might be a better way to disagree. And, as the furor in Washington was just beginning to build over the possible impeachment of the president, Donald Trump’s name barely came up.</p><p>As they arrived, and in breaks between their discussions, The New York Times took a portrait of nearly every one of them. Collectively, their faces are a reflection of all American voters.</p><p>Put a diverse group of people in a room, the political scientists James Fishkin and Larry Diamond argue, and they’re likely to mute their harshest views and wrestle more deeply with rebuttals. They become more informed, even more empathetic. And in this setting, the political scientists say, pollsters can get a picture of what people believe when they’re not just relying on sound bites and tribal cues.</p></blockquote><p>The article goes on:</p><blockquote><p>Over four days, mostly in small groups, they debated foreign policy, health care, immigration, the economy and the environment. They talked through policy proposals in a 55-page briefing booklet that made little mention of whom the proposals came from. Partisan trigger words — Democrats, Republicans, progressives, conservatives — were, by design, largely missing from the text.</p><p>Often, the language voters used was personal rather than political.</p><p>“You have to learn to listen to them,” Mr. Fishkin said. “They don’t talk the way policy wonks talk about an issue. They bring their life experience, their observations. But they’re making arguments when they tell a story.”</p></blockquote><div><div><hr/><p>Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and <a href="https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&amp;client_id=vi&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F10%2F07%2Flearning%2Fwhy-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html&amp;asset=opttrunc">log into</a> your Times account, or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F10%2F07%2Flearning%2Fwhy-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html">subscribe</a> for all of The Times.</p><hr/></div><div><p>Thank you for your patience while we verify access.</p><p>Already a subscriber? <a href="https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&amp;client_id=vi&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F10%2F07%2Flearning%2Fwhy-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html&amp;asset=opttrunc">Log in</a>.</p><p>Want all of The Times? <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F10%2F07%2Flearning%2Fwhy-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html">Subscribe</a>.</p></div></div></div><div><p>Advertisement</p><p><a href="#after-bottom">SKIP ADVERTISEMENT</a></p></div></article></div></div>||||I|||| Skip to contentSkip to site index
 The Learning Network
 Today’s Paper
 The Learning Network | Why Is It Important for People With Different Political Beliefs to Talk to Each Other?
 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/learning/why-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html
 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 223
 * U.S.
 * World
 * Business
 * Arts
 * Lifestyle
 * Opinion
 * Audio
 * Games
 * Cooking
 * Wirecutter
 * The Athletic

 Advertisement

 SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
 You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

 Supported by

 SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

 student opinion

 Why Is It Important for People With Different Political Beliefs to Talk to Each Other?

 What can we learn by interacting with people who have completely different life experiences than we do?

 * Share full article
 * 
 * 
 * 223

 Credit... Chad Batka and Celeste Sloman for The New York Times

 By Shannon Doyne

 Oct. 7, 2019

 Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

 Would you want to spend a few days sitting down with people and talking about issues that are important to voters in the United States? What if the people came from all corners of the political spectrum?

 How do you think the conversations would go? How do you think you would handle yourself in talking with someone with whom you vehemently disagree? Why?

 In “These 526 Voters Represent All of America. And They Spent a Weekend Together,” Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy write about the event called “America in One Room”:

 GRAPEVINE, TEX. — The voters arrived from all over the country: nine of them named John, 10 who’d come from mobile homes, four who lived in South Dakota. Twenty-seven considered themselves extremely conservative; 30 said they were extremely liberal. Twenty-one were out of work and looking for it. Two came with service dogs. At least one did not tell her parents she was coming here, because talking politics is so hard at home that she didn’t want to admit she was flying to Texas to talk politics with people she didn’t know.

 These voters — 526 total, representative of Americans who are registered to vote — were invited to spend a weekend in a resort outside Dallas to prove that there might be a better way to disagree. And, as the furor in Washington was just beginning to build over the possible impeachment of the president, Donald Trump’s name barely came up.

 As they arrived, and in breaks between their discussions, The New York Times took a portrait of nearly every one of them. Collectively, their faces are a reflection of all American voters.

 Put a diverse group of people in a room, the political scientists James Fishkin and Larry Diamond argue, and they’re likely to mute their harshest views and wrestle more deeply with rebuttals. They become more informed, even more empathetic. And in this setting, the political scientists say, pollsters can get a picture of what people believe when they’re not just relying on sound bites and tribal cues.

 The article goes on:

 Over four days, mostly in small groups, they debated foreign policy, health care, immigration, the economy and the environment. They talked through policy proposals in a 55-page briefing booklet that made little mention of whom the proposals came from. Partisan trigger words — Democrats, Republicans, progressives, conservatives — were, by design, largely missing from the text.

 Often, the language voters used was personal rather than political.

 “You have to learn to listen to them,” Mr. Fishkin said. “They don’t talk the way policy wonks talk about an issue. They bring their life experience, their observations. But they’re making arguments when they tell a story.”

 We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

 Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

 Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

 Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

 Already a subscriber? Log in.

 Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

 Advertisement

 SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

 Site Index

 Site Information Navigation

 * © 2024 The New York Times Company
 * NYTCo
 * Contact Us
 * Accessibility
 * Work with us
 * Advertise
 * T Brand Studio
 * Your Ad Choices
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Service
 * Terms of Sale
 * Site Map
 * Canada
 * International
 * Help
 * Subscriptions
 * Manage Privacy Preferences
Advertisement  SKIP ADVERTISEMENT    You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.   student opinion What can we learn by interacting with people who have completely different life experiences than we do?            Find all our Student Opinion questions here.  Would you want to spend a few days sitting down with people and talking about issues that are important to voters in the United States? What if the people came from all corners of the political spectrum?  How do you think the conversations would go? How do you think you would handle yourself in talking with someone with whom you vehemently disagree? Why? In “These 526 Voters Represent All of America. And They Spent a Weekend Together,” Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy write about the event called “America in One Room”:  GRAPEVINE, TEX. — The voters arrived from all over the country: nine of them named John, 10 who’d come from mobile homes, four who lived in South Dakota. Twenty-seven considered themselves extremely conservative; 30 said they were extremely liberal. Twenty-one were out of work and looking for it. Two came with service dogs. At least one did not tell her parents she was coming here, because talking politics is so hard at home that she didn’t want to admit she was flying to Texas to talk politics with people she didn’t know. These voters — 526 total, representative of Americans who are registered to vote — were invited to spend a weekend in a resort outside Dallas to prove that there might be a better way to disagree. And, as the furor in Washington was just beginning to build over the possible impeachment of the president, Donald Trump’s name barely came up. As they arrived, and in breaks between their discussions, The New York Times took a portrait of nearly every one of them. Collectively, their faces are a reflection of all American voters. Put a diverse group of people in a room, the political scientists James Fishkin and Larry Diamond argue, and they’re likely to mute their harshest views and wrestle more deeply with rebuttals. They become more informed, even more empathetic. And in this setting, the political scientists say, pollsters can get a picture of what people believe when they’re not just relying on sound bites and tribal cues.  The article goes on:  Over four days, mostly in small groups, they debated foreign policy, health care, immigration, the economy and the environment. They talked through policy proposals in a 55-page briefing booklet that made little mention of whom the proposals came from. Partisan trigger words — Democrats, Republicans, progressives, conservatives — were, by design, largely missing from the text. Often, the language voters used was personal rather than political. “You have to learn to listen to them,” Mr. Fishkin said. “They don’t talk the way policy wonks talk about an issue. They bring their life experience, their observations. But they’re making arguments when they tell a story.”     Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.    Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.     Advertisement  SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Why Is It Important for People With Different Political Beliefs to Talk to Each Other?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/learning/why-is-it-important-for-people-with-different-political-beliefs-to-talk-to-each-other.html
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7923/7419
View of Understanding politics more thoroughly: How highly engaged young citizens use the Internet for civic knowledge integration
None
None
<div>
<header>
<a href="https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7923">
</a>
<a href="https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7923">
	Understanding politics more thoroughly: How highly engaged young citizens use the Internet for civic knowledge integration
	</a>
</header>
</div>||||I||||Return to Article Details Understanding politics more thoroughly: How highly engaged young citizens use the Internet for civic knowledge integration
Understanding politics more thoroughly: How highly engaged young citizens use the Internet for civic knowledge integration
View of Understanding politics more thoroughly: How highly engaged young citizens use the Internet for civic knowledge integration
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7923/7419
https://www.usnews.com/opinion
U.S. News – Opinion
2022-11-30
Joan Steinberg
<div><div><div><div><nav><ol><li><a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion">Opinion</a></li><li><a href="https://www.usnews.com/">Home</a></li></ol></nav></div><div><p>U.S. News’ opinion section examines high-level issues that matter to readers, mixing evergreen debates with newsy topics related to politics and policy, health, education, the economy and more. While individual commentaries reflect the opinions of their contributors, all content is edited, fact-checked and subject to U.S. News’ <a href="https://www.usnews.com/about-us/editorial-guidelines"><u>editorial guidelines</u></a>.</p></div></div><div><div><a href="https://www.usnews.com/"></a></div><p>Opinion</p></div><div><div><div><h2>The Forum</h2><p>The Forum brings together thought leaders and expert contributors to share multiple perspectives on the big questions of the moment. Read on for our latest Forum package on how hospitals, policymakers and others can work together to address health equity.</p></div><div><h3>Read More From The Forum</h3></div></div><div><h2>Read Former Forum Pieces</h2><p>View the archive of previous U.S. News Forum packages.</p></div><div><h2>Commentary</h2><p>Read viewpoints and editorials from guest authors and experts.</p></div><div><h2>Cartoons</h2></div><div><div><div></div><h2>Sign Up for The Report</h2></div><p>Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News &amp; World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our <a href="https://www.usnews.com/info/features/terms">Terms and Conditions</a> &amp; <a href="https://www.usnews.com/features/info/privacy">Privacy Policy</a>.</p></div><div><div><h2>Read More</h2><p>Discover in-depth news and insights from U.S. News.</p></div><div><h3>Latest Updates</h3></div></div><div><h2>Contact Us</h2><p>Want to offer feedback or submit a commentary for consideration? Contact us <a href="https://www.usnews.com/info/features/contact">here</a>.</p></div></div></div>||||I|||| News
 * News

 + Sections

 o Cartoons
 o Top Stories
 o Health News
 o Politics
 o New York
 o World Report
 o Business News
 o Coronavirus
 o Games
 * Best Countries
 + Home
 + Overall Rankings
 + Rankings Index
 + Countries Index
 + Data Explorer
 + News

 + Resources

 o Methodology
 o FAQ
 o Download 2022 Rankings
 * Best States
 + Home
 + Overall Rankings 2021
 + Gender Equality 2022
 + Rankings Index
 + States Index
 + Coronavirus Data
 + Data Explorer
 + News

 + Resources

 o Methodology
 o FAQ
 o Download 2021 Rankings
 * Healthiest Communities
 + Home
 + Overall Rankings
 + Urban, High-Performing
 + Urban, Up-and-Coming
 + Rural, High-Performing
 + Rural, Up-and-Coming
 + Coronavirus Data
 + Data Explorer
 + News

 + Resources

 o Methodology
 o FAQ
 * Opinion
 * Elections
 * The Racial Divide
 * Photos
 * U.S. News Live
 * The Report
 Sign In
 1. Opinion
 2. Home

 Opinion

 U.S. News’ opinion section examines high-level issues that matter to readers, mixing evergreen debates with newsy topics related to politics and policy, health, education, the economy and more. While individual commentaries reflect the opinions of their contributors, all content is edited, fact-checked and subject to U.S. News’ editorial guidelines .
 On This Page
 The Forum Read Former Forum Pieces Commentary Cartoons Sign Up for The Report Read More Contact Us

 Opinion

 More

 The Forum

 The Forum brings together thought leaders and expert contributors to share multiple perspectives on the big questions of the moment. Read on for our latest Forum package on how hospitals, policymakers and others can work together to address health equity.

 How Can the U.S. Improve Health Equity?

 Credit

 Getty Images/iStockphoto

 How Can the U.S. Improve Health Equity?

 Making better use of data and taking community-level action are among the ways to boost health parity.

 Credit

 Getty Images/iStockphoto

 Read More From The Forum

 How Can the U.S. Protect Itself Against Cyberattacks?

 How Can the U.S. Prepare for the Next Pandemic?

 Should the Government Forgive Student Loan Debt?

 Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

 Introducing The Forum

 Read Former Forum Pieces

 View the archive of previous U.S. News Forum packages.

 Should the U.S. Adopt a 4-Day Workweek?

 Should a National Eviction Ban Be Reinstated?

 Should Schools Mandate COVID Vaccines?

 Should the COVID-19 Vaccine Be Required?

 Commentary

 Read viewpoints and editorials from guest authors and experts.

 Healthiest Communities Health News

 How Parents Can Tackle the Digital Age

 As the roles of technology and the internet grow in this digital age, parents must rewrite their playbook to ensure their children's safety online.

 Joan Steinberg

 Healthiest Communities Health News

 A Prescription for Equitable Health

 Transitioning from fossil fuels can curb health problems tied to environmental racism and made worse by climate change.

 Renee Salas, M.D.

 Healthiest Communities Health News

 The Black and White of Organ Transplants

 The push for health equity in the U.S. must encompass and confront the disparities within our system of organ transplantation.

 Leonard Achan

 Opinion

 Joe Biden’s Tough Message to Russia

 The president’s hostile speech served to show America – and Ukraine – that he will make the war a centerpiece of his presidency.

 David Gergen

 Best States

 Minnesota Eyes an Equitable Economy

 George Floyd’s murder exposed Minnesota’s racial disparities; the state sees this moment as an inflection point for change.

 Steve Grove

 Healthiest Communities

 Health Equity Begins in Local Communities

 Health inequity is an American crisis fueled by myriad factors. But together, we can make a difference.

 Joneigh Khaldun

 Healthiest Communities Health News

 A Pandemic Push for Better Mental Health Care

 COVID can help us create a better landscape for mental health – one in which the topic is readily talked about and where those who need help can easily get it.

 John MacPhee

 Best States

 Double the Pell Grant for Students

 The federal government must expand financial awards to undergraduates to stem the alarming drop of low-income students enrolling in college.

 Gretchen Whitmer and Kim Cook

 Best Countries

 The Need to Guard Human Rights

 The long-standing accusations surrounding a 1988 massacre of thousands in Iran underscores the need for the West to act to defend the rule of law.

 Patrick J. Kennedy and Alejo Vidal-Quadras

 Cartoons

 The Week in Cartoons Feb. 20-24

 The Week in Cartoons Feb. 13-17

 The Week in Cartoons Feb. 6-10

 The Week in Cartoons Jan. 30 - Feb. 3

 Sign Up for The Report

 Sign Up

 Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.

 Read More

 Discover in-depth news and insights from U.S. News.

 World News

 'An Absurdity': Experts Slam WHO's Excusal of Misconduct

 By Associated Press Feb. 27, 2023
 Credit

 Kudra Maliro

 World News

 'An Absurdity': Experts Slam WHO's Excusal of Misconduct

 Two experts appointed by the World Health Organization to investigate allegations that some of its staffers sexually abused women during an Ebola outbreak in Congo have dismissed the U_N_ agency’s own efforts to excuse its handling of such misconduct as “an absurdity.”

 Associated Press Feb. 27, 2023
 Credit

 Kudra Maliro

 Latest Updates

 Macao Eases COVID Mask Mandate as Virus Situation Stabilizes

 North Korea Holds Rare Meeting on Farming Amid Food Shortage

 Millions Who Rely on Medicaid May Be Booted From Program

 Jill Biden Talks Safe Sex, Condoms With Kenya's Young Adults

 N. Korea Food Shortage Worsens Amid COVID, but No Famine Yet

 Contact Us

 Want to offer feedback or submit a commentary for consideration? Contact us here.

 News

 Best Countries
 Best States
 Healthiest Communities
 Сities
 The Report
 Photos
 News

 Law Firms

 Practice Areas
 Lawyer Directory

 Education

 Colleges
 Graduate Schools
 Online Colleges
 Global Universities
 K-12 Schools
 Community Colleges
 Education Rankings

 Rankings

 All Rankings

 Health

 Hospitals
 Doctors
 Senior Living
 Wellness
 Diets
 Health Insurance
 Conditions
 Patient Advice
 Healthcare of Tomorrow

 Money

 Investing
 Retirement
 Credit Cards
 Loans
 Banking
 Personal Finance
 Careers

 Real Estate

 Best Places to Live
 Best Places to Retire
 Find an Agent

 Cars

 New Cars
 Used Cars
 Car Rankings
 Best Car Deals
 Cars for Sale
 Car Buying Advice

 Travel

 Vacations
 Travel Guides
 Hotels
 Cruises
 Rewards

 360 Reviews

 Home Security
 Mattress
 Home Warranty
 Internet Providers
 Identity Theft Protection

 Deals

 Coupons

 Insurance

 Car Insurance
 Home Insurance
 Life Insurance
 Renters Insurance
 Pet Insurance

 News

 Law Firms

 Education

 Rankings

 Health

 Money

 Real Estate

 Cars

 Travel

 360 Reviews

 Deals

 Insurance

 About U.S. News
 Editorial Guidelines
 Contact
 Press
 Advertise
 Newsletters
 Jobs
 Site Map
 Store
 Copyright 2023 © U.S. News & World Report L.P.Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy and Cookie Notice / California Privacy Notice / Your Privacy Choices
Opinion   Home      U.S. News’ opinion section examines high-level issues that matter to readers, mixing evergreen debates with newsy topics related to politics and policy, health, education, the economy and more. While individual commentaries reflect the opinions of their contributors, all content is edited, fact-checked and subject to U.S. News’  editorial guidelines .        Opinion     The Forum The Forum brings together thought leaders and expert contributors to share multiple perspectives on the big questions of the moment. Read on for our latest Forum package on how hospitals, policymakers and others can work together to address health equity.   Read More From The Forum    Read Former Forum Pieces View the archive of previous U.S. News Forum packages.   Commentary Read viewpoints and editorials from guest authors and experts.   Cartoons      Sign Up for The Report  Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News &amp; World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions &amp; Privacy Policy.    Read More Discover in-depth news and insights from U.S. News.   Latest Updates    Contact Us Want to offer feedback or submit a commentary for consideration? Contact us here.
U.S. News – Opinion
https://www.usnews.com/opinion
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2018-09-11
Christopher A Bail; Lisa P Argyle; Taylor W Brown; John P Bumpus; Haohan Chen; M B Fallin Hunzaker; Jaemin Lee; Marcus Mann; Friedolin Merhout; Alexander Volfovsky; Bail; Christopher A; Argyle; Lisa P; Brown; Taylor W; Bumpus; John P; Chen; Haohan; Hunzaker; M B Fallin; Lee; Jaemin; Mann; Marcus; Merhout; Friedolin; Volfovsky; Alexander
<div><article><header><div><div><p>Edited by Peter S. Bearman, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved August 9, 2018 (received for review March 20, 2018)</p></div><div><p>August 28, 2018</p><p>115 (37) 9216-9221</p></div></div></header><div><section><h2>Significance</h2><p>Social media sites are often blamed for exacerbating political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that prevent people from being exposed to information that contradicts their preexisting beliefs. We conducted a field experiment that offered a large group of Democrats and Republicans financial compensation to follow bots that retweeted messages by elected officials and opinion leaders with opposing political views. Republican participants expressed substantially more conservative views after following a liberal Twitter bot, whereas Democrats’ attitudes became slightly more liberal after following a conservative Twitter bot—although this effect was not statistically significant. Despite several limitations, this study has important implications for the emerging field of computational social science and ongoing efforts to reduce political polarization online.</p></section><section><h2>Abstract</h2><p>There is mounting concern that social media sites contribute to political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that insulate people from opposing views about current events. We surveyed a large sample of Democrats and Republicans who visit Twitter at least three times each week about a range of social policy issues. One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition in which they were offered financial incentives to follow a Twitter bot for 1 month that exposed them to messages from those with opposing political ideologies (e.g., elected officials, opinion leaders, media organizations, and nonprofit groups). Respondents were resurveyed at the end of the month to measure the effect of this treatment, and at regular intervals throughout the study period to monitor treatment compliance. We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment. Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant. Notwithstanding important limitations of our study, these findings have significant implications for the interdisciplinary literature on political polarization and the emerging field of computational social science.</p></section>
 
 
 <div>
 <h3>Sign up for PNAS alerts.</h3>
 <p>Get alerts for new articles, or get an alert when an article is cited.</p>
 </div>
</div><div><p>Political polarization in the United States has become a central focus of social scientists in recent decades (<a href="#core-r1">1</a>–<a href="#core-r7">7</a>). Americans are deeply divided on controversial issues such as inequality, gun control, and immigration—and divisions about such issues have become increasingly aligned with partisan identities in recent years (<a href="#core-r8">8</a>, <a href="#core-r9">9</a>). Partisan identification now predicts preferences about a range of social policy issues nearly three times as well as any other demographic factor—such as education or age (<a href="#core-r10">10</a>). These partisan divisions not only impede compromise in the design and implementation of social policies but also have far-reaching consequences for the effective function of democracy more broadly (<a href="#core-r11">11</a>–<a href="#core-r15">15</a>).</p><p>America’s cavernous partisan divides are often attributed to “echo chambers,” or patterns of information sharing that reinforce preexisting political beliefs by limiting exposure to opposing political views (<a href="#core-r16">16</a>–<a href="#core-r20">20</a>). Concern about selective exposure to information and political polarization has increased in the age of social media (<a href="#core-r16">16</a>, <a href="#core-r21">21</a>–<a href="#core-r23">23</a>). The vast majority of Americans now visit a social media site at least once each day, and a rapidly growing number of them list social media as their primary source of news (<a href="#core-r24">24</a>). Despite initial optimism that social media might enable people to consume more heterogeneous sources of information about current events, there is growing concern that such forums exacerbate political polarization because of social network homophily, or the well-documented tendency of people to form social network ties to those who are similar to themselves (<a href="#core-r25">25</a>, <a href="#core-r26">26</a>). The endogenous relationship between social network formation and political attitudes also creates formidable challenges for the study of social media echo chambers and political polarization, since it is notoriously difficult to establish whether social media networks shape political opinions, or vice versa (<a href="#core-r27">27</a>–<a href="#core-r29">29</a>).</p><p>Here, we report the results of a large field experiment designed to examine whether disrupting selective exposure to partisan information among Twitter users shapes their political attitudes. Our research is governed by three preregistered hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that disrupting selective exposure to partisan information will decrease political polarization because of intergroup contact effects. A vast literature indicates contact between opposing groups can challenge stereotypes that develop in the absence of positive interactions between them (<a href="#core-r30">30</a>). Studies also indicate intergroup contact increases the likelihood of deliberation and political compromise (<a href="#core-r31">31</a>–<a href="#core-r33">33</a>). However, all of these previous studies examine interpersonal contact between members of rival groups. In contrast, our experiment creates virtual contact between members of the public and opinion leaders from the opposing political party on a social media site. It is not yet known whether such virtual contact creates the same type of positive mutual understanding—or whether the relative anonymity of social media forums emboldens people to act in an uncivil manner. Such incivility could be particularly rife in the absence of facial cues and other nonverbal gestures that might prevent the escalation of arguments in offline settings.</p><p>Our second hypothesis builds upon a more recent wave of studies that suggest exposure to those with opposing political views may create backfire effects that exacerbate political polarization (<a href="#core-r34">34</a>–<a href="#core-r37">37</a>). This literature—which now spans several academic disciplines—indicates people who are exposed to messages that conflict with their own attitudes are prone to counterargue them using motivated reasoning, which accentuates perceived differences between groups and increases their commitment to preexisting beliefs (<a href="#core-r34">34</a>–<a href="#core-r37">37</a>). Many studies in this literature observe backfire effects via survey experiments where respondents are exposed to information that corrects factual inaccuracies—such as the notion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq—although these findings have failed to replicate in two recent studies (<a href="#core-r38">38</a>, <a href="#core-r39">39</a>). Yet our study is not designed to evaluate attempts to correct factual inaccuracies. Instead, we aim to assess the broader impact of prolonged exposure to counterattitudinal messages on social media.</p><p>Our third preregistered hypothesis is that backfire effects will be more likely to occur among conservatives than liberals. This hypothesis builds upon recent studies that indicate conservatives hold values that prioritize certainty and tradition, whereas liberals value change and diversity (<a href="#core-r40">40</a>, <a href="#core-r41">41</a>). We also build upon recent studies in cultural sociology that examine the deeper cultural schemas and narratives that create and sustain such value differences (<a href="#core-r34">34</a>, <a href="#core-r26">26</a>). Finally, we also build upon studies that observe asymmetric polarization in roll call voting wherein Republicans have become substantially more conservative whereas Democrats exhibit little or no increase in liberal voting positions (<a href="#core-r42">42</a>). Although a number of studies have found evidence of this trend, we are not aware of any that examine such dynamics among the broader public—and on social media in particular.</p><section><h2>Research Design</h2><p><a href="#fig01">Fig. 1</a> provides an overview of our research design. We hired a professional survey firm to recruit self-identified Republicans and Democrats who visit Twitter at least three times each week to complete a 10-min survey in mid-October 2017 and 1.5 mo later. These surveys measure the key outcome variable: change in political ideology during the study period via a 10-item survey instrument that asked respondents to agree or disagree with a range of statements about policy issues on a seven-point scale (α=.91) (<a href="#core-r10">10</a>). Our survey also collected information about other political attitudes, use of social media and conventional media sources, and a range of demographic indicators that we describe in <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>. Finally, all respondents were asked to report their Twitter ID, which we used to mine additional information about their online behavior, including the partisan background of the accounts they follow on Twitter. Our research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Duke University and New York University. All respondents provided informed consent before participating in our research.</p><div><header><p>Fig. 1.</p></header><figure><a href="#fig01"></a><figcaption>Overview of research design.</figcaption></figure><p><a href="#fig01">Open in viewer</a></p></div><p>We ran separate field experiments for Democratic and Republican respondents, and, within each group, we used a block randomization design that further stratified respondents according to two variables that have been linked to political polarization: (<i>i</i>) level of attachment to political party and (<i>ii</i>) level of interest in current events. We also randomized assignment according to respondents’ frequency of Twitter use, which we reasoned would influence the amount of exposure to the intervention we describe in the following paragraph and thereby the overall likelihood of opinion change.</p><p>We received 1,652 responses to our pretreatment survey (901 Democrats and 751 Republicans). One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition, thus using an “ostensibly unrelated” survey design (<a href="#core-r43">43</a>). At this time, respondents in the treatment condition were offered $11 to follow a Twitter bot, or automated Twitter account, that they were told would retweet 24 messages each day for 1 mo. Respondents were not informed of the content of the messages the bots would retweet. As <a href="#fig02">Fig. 2</a> illustrates, we created a liberal Twitter bot and a conservative Twitter bot for each of our experiments. These bots retweeted messages randomly sampled from a list of 4,176 political Twitter accounts (e.g., elected officials, opinion leaders, media organizations, and nonprofit groups). These accounts were identified via a network-sampling technique that assumes those with similar political ideologies are more likely to follow each other on Twitter than those with opposing political ideologies (<a href="#core-r44">44</a>). For further details about the design of the study’s bots, please refer to <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>.</p><div><header><p>Fig. 2.</p></header><figure><a href="#fig02"></a><figcaption>Design of study’s Twitter bots.</figcaption></figure><p><a href="#fig02">Open in viewer</a></p></div><p>To monitor treatment compliance, respondents were offered additional financial incentives (up to $18) to complete weekly surveys that asked them to answer questions about the content of the tweets produced by the Twitter bots and identify a picture of an animal that was tweeted twice a day by the bot but deleted immediately before the weekly survey. At the conclusion of the study period, respondents were asked to complete a final survey with the same questions from the initial (pretreatment) survey. Of those invited to follow a Twitter bot, 64.9% of Democrats and 57.2% of Republicans accepted our invitation. Approximately 62% of Democrats and Republicans who followed the bots were able to answer all substantive questions about the content of messages retweeted each week, and 50.2% were able to identify the animal picture retweeted each day.</p></section><section><h2>Results</h2><p><a href="#fig03">Fig. 3</a> reports the effect of being assigned to the treatment condition, or the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) effects, as well as the Complier Average Causal Effects (CACE) which account for the differential rates of compliance among respondents we observed. These estimates were produced via multivariate models that predict respondents’ posttreatment scores on the liberal/conservative scale described above, controlling for pretreatment scores on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>. We control for respondents’ pretreatment liberal/conservative scale score to mitigate the influence of period effects. Negative scores indicate respondents became more liberal in response to treatment, and positive scores indicate they became more conservative. Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and the horizontal lines in <a href="#fig03">Fig. 3</a> describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. We measured compliance with treatment in three ways. “Minimally Compliant Respondents” describes those who followed our bot throughout the entire study period. “Partially Compliant Respondents” are those who were able to answer at least one—but not all—questions about the content of one of the bots’ tweets administered each week during the survey period. “Fully Compliant Respondents” are those who successfully answered all of these questions. These last two categories are mutually exclusive.</p><div><header><p>Fig. 3.</p></header><figure><a href="#fig03"></a><figcaption>Effect of following Twitter bots that retweet messages by elected officials, organizations, and opinion leaders with opposing political ideologies for 1 mo, on a seven-point liberal/conservative scale where larger values indicate more conservative opinions about social policy issues, for experiments with Democrats (<i>n</i> = 697) and Republicans (<i>n</i> = 542). Models predict posttreatment liberal/conservative scale score and control for pretreatment score on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>. Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and bars describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. “Respondents Assigned to Treatment” describes the ITT effect for Democrats (ITT = −0.02, t = −0.76, p = 0.45, n = 416) and Republicans (ITT = 0.12, t = 2.68, p = 0.008, n = 316). “Minimally-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who followed one of the study’s bots for Democrats (CACE = −0.04, t = −0.75, p = 0.45, n of compliant respondents = 271) and Republicans (CACE = 0.19, t = 2.73, p&lt; 0.007, n of compliant respondents = 181). “Partially-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who correctly answered at least one question, but not all questions, about the content of a bot’s tweets during weekly surveys throughout the study period for Democrats (CACE = −0.05, t = −0.75, p = 0.45, n of compliant respondents = 211) and Republicans (CACE = 0.31, t = 2.73, p&lt;.007, n of compliant respondents = 121). “Fully-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who answered all questions about the content of the bot’s tweets correctly for Democrats (CACE = −0.14, t = −0.75, p = 0.46, n of compliant respondents = 66) and Republicans (CACE = 0.60, t = 2.53, p&lt; 0.01, n of compliant respondents = 53). Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. In contrast, treated Republicans exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, and these effects are highly significant.</figcaption></figure><p><a href="#fig03">Open in viewer</a></p></div><p>Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. Treated Republicans, by contrast, exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment. These effects also increase with level of compliance, but they are highly significant. Our most cautious estimate is that treated Republicans increased 0.12 points on a seven-point scale, although our model that estimates the effect of treatment upon fully compliant respondents indicates this effect is substantially larger (0.60 points). These estimates correspond to an increase in conservatism between 0.11 and 0.59 standard deviations.</p></section><section><h2>Discussion and Conclusion</h2><p>Before discussing the implications of these findings, we first note important limitations of our study. Readers should not interpret our findings as evidence that exposure to opposing political views will increase polarization in all settings. Although ours is among the largest field experiments conducted on social media to date, the findings above should not be generalized to the entire US population, because a majority of Americans do not use Twitter (<a href="#core-r24">24</a>). It is also unclear how exposure to opposing views might shape political polarization in other parts of the world. In addition, we did not study people who identify as independents, or those who use Twitter but do so infrequently. Such individuals might exhibit quite different reactions to an intervention such as ours. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the external validity of our findings, because we offered our respondents financial incentives to read messages from people or organizations with opposing views. It is possible that Twitter users may simply ignore such counterattitudinal messages in the absence of such incentives. Perhaps the most important limitation of our study is that we were unable to identify the precise mechanism that created the backfire effect among Republican respondents reported above. Future studies are thus urgently needed not only to determine whether our findings replicate in different populations or within varied social settings but to further identify the precise causal pathways that create backfire effects more broadly.</p><p>Future studies are also needed because we cannot rule out all alternative explanations of our findings. In <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>, we present additional analyses that give us confidence that our results are not driven by Hawthorne effects, partisan “learning” processes, variation in the ideological extremity of messages by party, or demographic differences in social media use by age. At the same time, we are unable to rule out other alternative explanations discussed in <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>. For example, it is possible that our findings resulted from increased exposure to information about politics, and not exposure to opposing messages per se. Similarly, increases in conservatism among Republicans may have resulted from increased exposure to women or racial and ethnic minorities whose messages were retweeted by our liberal bot. Finally, our intervention only exposed respondents to high-profile elites with opposing political ideologies. Although our liberal and conservative bots randomly selected messages from across the liberal and conservative spectrum, previous studies indicate such elites are significantly more polarized than the general electorate (<a href="#core-r45">45</a>). It is thus possible that the backfire effect we identified could be exacerbated by an antielite bias, and future studies are needed to examine the effect of online intergroup contact with nonelites.</p><p>Despite these limitations, our findings have important implications for current debates in sociology, political science, social psychology, communications, and information science. Although we found no evidence that exposing Twitter users to opposing views reduces political polarization, our study revealed significant partisan differences in backfire effects. This finding is important, since our study examines such effects in an experimental setting that involves repeated contact between rival groups across an extended time period on social media. Our field experiment also disrupts selective exposure to information about politics in a real-world setting through a combination of survey research, bot technology, and digital trace data collection. This methodological innovation enabled us to collect information about the nexus of social media and politics with high granularity while developing techniques for measuring treatment compliance, mitigating causal interference, and verifying survey responses with behavioral data—as we discuss in <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a>. Together, we believe these contributions represent an important advance for the nascent field of computational social science (<a href="#core-r46">46</a>).</p><p>Although our findings should not be generalized beyond party-identified Americans who use Twitter frequently, we note that recent studies indicate this population has an outsized influence on the trajectory of public discussion—particularly as the media itself has come to rely upon Twitter as a source of news and a window into public opinion (<a href="#core-r47">47</a>). Although limited in scope, our findings may be of interest to those who are working to reduce political polarization in applied settings. More specifically, our study indicates that attempts to introduce people to a broad range of opposing political views on a social media site such as Twitter might be not only be ineffective but counterproductive—particularly if such interventions are initiated by liberals. Since previous studies have produced substantial evidence that intergroup contact produces compromise and mutual understanding in other contexts, however, future attempts to reduce political polarization on social media will most likely require learning which types of messages, tactics, or issue positions are most likely to create backfire effects and whether others—perhaps delivered by nonelites or in offline settings—might be more effective vehicles to bridge America’s partisan divides.</p></section><section><h2>Materials and Methods</h2><p>See <a href="http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115#supplementary-materials"><i>SI Appendix</i></a> for a detailed description of all materials and methods used within this study as well as links to our preregistration statement, replication materials, additional robustness checks, and an extended discussion of alternative explanations of our findings. Our research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Duke University and New York University.</p></section></div><div><section><h2>Data Availability</h2></section><section><h2>Acknowledgments</h2><p>We thank Paul DiMaggio, Sunshine Hillygus, Gary King, Fan Li, Arthur Lupia, Brendan Nyhan, and Samantha Luks for helpful conversations about this study prior to our research. Our work was supported by the Carnegie Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.</p></section><section><h2>Supporting Information</h2><div><ul><li><a href="/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.1804840115/suppl_file/pnas.1804840115.sapp.pdf">Download</a></li><li>1.37 MB</li></ul></div></section><section><h2>References</h2><div><div><p>1</p><div><p>P DiMaggio, J Evans, B Bryson, Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? <em>Am J Sociol</em> <b>102</b>, 690–755 (1996).</p></div></div><div><p>2</p><div><p>S Iyengar, SJ Westwood, Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. <em>Am J Polit Sci</em> <b>59</b>, 690–707 (2015).</p></div></div><div><p>3</p><div><p>D Baldassarri, A Gelman, Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. <em>Am J Sociol</em> <b>114</b>, 408–446 (2008).</p></div></div><div><p>4</p><div><p>J Sides, DJ Hopkins <em>Political Polarization in American Politics</em> (Bloomsbury, London, 2015).</p></div></div><div><p>5</p><div><p>D Baldassarri, P Bearman, Dynamics of political polarization. <em>Am Sociol Rev</em> <b>72</b>, 784–811 (2007).</p></div></div><div><p>6</p><div><p>MP Fiorina, SJ Abrams, Political polarization in the American public. <em>Annu Rev Polit Sci</em> <b>11</b>, 563–588 (2008).</p></div></div><div><p>7</p><div><p>D DellaPosta, Y Shi, M Macy, Why do liberals drink lattes? <em>Am J Sociol</em> <b>120</b>, 1473–1511 (2015).</p></div></div><div><p>8</p><div><p>M Levendusky <em>The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans</em> (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009).</p></div></div><div><p>9</p><div><p>L Mason <em>Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity</em> (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, 2018).</p></div></div><div><p>10</p><div><p>M Dimock, D Carroll, Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise, and everyday life (Pew Res Cent, Washington, DC). (2014).</p></div></div><div><p>11</p><div><p>CH Achen, LM Bartels <em>Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government</em> (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2016).</p></div></div><div><p>12</p><div><p>RS Erikson, GC Wright, JP McIver <em>Public Opinion and Policy in the American States</em> (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993).</p></div></div><div><p>13</p><div><p>JS Fishkin <em>When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation</em> (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2011).</p></div></div><div><p>14</p><div><p>WL Bennett, S Iyengar, A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. <em>J Commun</em> <b>58</b>, 707–731 (2008).</p></div></div><div><p>15</p><div><p>C Sunstein <em>Republic.com</em> (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2002).</p></div></div><div><p>16</p><div><p>E Bakshy, S Messing, LA Adamic, Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. <em>Science</em> <b>348</b>, 1130–1132 (2015).</p></div></div><div><p>17</p><div><p>C Sunstein <em>Echo Chambers, Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond</em> (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2001).</p></div></div><div><p>18</p><div><p>G King, B Schneer, A White, How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. <em>Science</em> <b>358</b>, 776–780 (2017).</p></div></div><div><p>19</p><div><p>JM Berry, S Sobieraj <em>The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility</em> (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2013).</p></div></div><div><p>20</p><div><p>M Prior, Media and political polarization. <em>Annu Rev Polit Sci</em> <b>16</b>, 101–127 (2013).</p></div></div><div><p>21</p><div><p>E Pariser <em>The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think</em> (Penguin, New York, 2011).</p></div></div><div><p>22</p><div><p>M Conover, J Ratkiewicz, M Francisco, Political polarization on twitter. <em>ICWSM</em> <b>133</b>, 89–96 (2011).</p></div></div><div><p>23</p><div><p>L Boxell, M Gentzkow, JM Shapiro, Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among us demographic groups. <em>Proc Natl Acad Sci USA</em> <b>114</b>, 10612–10617 (2017).</p></div></div><div><p>24</p><div><p>A Perrin, Social media usage: 2005-2015 (Pew Res Cent, Washington, DC). (2015).</p></div></div><div><p>25</p><div><p>M McPherson, L Smith-lovin, JM Cook, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. <em>Annu Rev Sociol</em> <b>27</b>, 415–444 (2001).</p></div></div><div><p>26</p><div><p>A Edelmann, S Vaisey, Cultural resources and cultural distinction in networks. <em>Poetics</em> <b>46</b>, 22–37 (2014).</p></div></div><div><p>27</p><div><p>D Lazer, B Rubineau, C Chetkovich, N Katz, M Neblo, The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. <em>Polit Commun</em> <b>27</b>, 248–274 (2010).</p></div></div><div><p>28</p><div><p>D Centola, An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. <em>Science</em> <b>334</b>, 1269–1272 (2011).</p></div></div><div><p>29</p><div><p>S Vaisey, O Lizardo, Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? <em>Social Forces</em> <b>88</b>, 1595–1618 (2010).</p></div></div><div><p>30</p><div><p>TF Pettigrew, LR Tropp, A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. <em>J Pers Soc Psychol</em> <b>90</b>, 751–783 (2006).</p></div></div><div><p>31</p><div><p>R Huckfeldt, PE Johnson, J Sprague <em>Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks</em> (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004).</p></div></div><div><p>32</p><div><p>DC Mutz, Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. <em>Am Polit Sci Rev</em> <b>96</b>, 111–126 (2002).</p></div></div><div><p>33</p><div><p>K Grönlund, K Herne, M Setälä, Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? <em>Polit Behav</em> <b>37</b>, 995–1020 (2015).</p></div></div><div><p>34</p><div><p>C Bail <em>Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream</em> (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2015).</p></div></div><div><p>35</p><div><p>CG Lord, L Ross, MR Lepper, Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. <em>J Pers Soc Psychol</em> <b>37</b>, 2098–2109 (1979).</p></div></div><div><p>36</p><div><p>B Nyhan, J Reifler, When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. <em>Polit Behav</em> <b>32</b>, 303–330 (2010).</p></div></div><div><p>37</p><div><p>CS Taber, M Lodge, Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. <em>Am J Polit Sci</em> <b>50</b>, 755–769 (2006).</p></div></div><div><p>38</p><div><p>T Wood, E Porter, The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. <em>Polit Behav</em>, pp. 1–29 (2016).</p></div></div><div><p>39</p><div><p>T Wood, E Porter, The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. <em>Polit Behav</em>, 2018).</p></div></div><div><p>40</p><div><p>J Graham, J Haidt, BA Nosek, Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. <em>J Pers Social Psychol</em> <b>96</b>, 1029–1046 (2009).</p></div></div><div><p>41</p><div><p>JT Jost, et al., Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? <em>Pers Soc Psychol Bull</em> <b>33</b>, 989–1007 (2007).</p></div></div><div><p>42</p><div><p>M Grossmann, DA Hopkins <em>Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats</em> (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2016).</p></div></div><div><p>43</p><div><p>D Broockman, J Kalla, Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. <em>Science</em> <b>352</b>, 220–224 (2016).</p></div></div><div><p>44</p><div><p>P Barberá, Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. <em>Polit Anal</em> <b>23</b>, 76–91 (2014).</p></div></div><div><p>45</p><div><p>AI Abramowitz, KL Saunders, Is polarization a myth? <em>J Polit</em> <b>70</b>, 542–555 (2008).</p></div></div><div><p>46</p><div><p>D Lazer, et al., Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. <em>Science</em> <b>323</b>, 721–723 (2009).</p></div></div><div><p>47</p><div><p>R Faris, et al., Partisanship, Propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 U.S. presidential election, (Berkman Klein Cent Internet Soc Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA). (2017).</p></div></div></div></section></div></article>||||I||||















































 Skip to main content
 * ARTICLES
 Current IssueLatest ArticlesSpecial FeaturesList of IssuesPNAS Nexus
 * Front Matter
 * AUTHORS
 Information for AuthorsEditorial and Journal PoliciesSubmission ProceduresPublication Charges
 * Topics
 + Physical Sciences
 + Social Sciences
 + Biological Sciences

 Featured Topics

 + Physics
 + Chemistry
 + Sustainability Science

 Articles By Topic

 + Applied Mathematics
 + Applied Physical Sciences
 + Astronomy
 + Biophysics and Computational Biology
 + Computer Sciences
 + Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
 + Engineering
 + Environmental Sciences
 + Mathematics
 + Statistics

 Featured Topics

 + Anthropology
 + Sustainability Science

 Articles By Topic

 + Demography
 + Economic Sciences
 + Environmental Sciences
 + Political Sciences
 + Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

 Featured Topic

 + Anthropology
 + Sustainability Science

 Articles By Topic

 + Agricultural Sciences
 + Applied Biological Sciences
 + Biochemistry
 + Biophysics and Computational Biology
 + Cell Biology
 + Developmental Biology
 + Ecology
 + Environmental Sciences
 + Evolution
 + Genetics
 + Immunology and Inflammation
 + Medical Sciences
 + Microbiology
 + Neuroscience
 + Pharmacology
 + Physiology
 + Plant Biology
 + Population Biology
 + Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
 + Systems Biology
 * 
 0 Cart
 Sign in Register
 Individual Login Institutional Login
 Submit
 Quick Search anywhere
 Enter text / DOI / article type / keywords / authors / etc
 Quick search in Citations
 JournalYearVolumeIssuePage
 Quick Search in Journals
 Enter text / DOI / article type / keywords / authors / etc
 Quick Search in Journals
 Enter text / DOI / article type / keywords / authors / etc
 Searching:
 Anywhere
 AnywhereCitationPNAS NexusProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
 Advanced Search Search
 SUGGESTED SEARCHES:
 Covid-19 Demography Monkeypox Climate Change Gun Violence
 Sign in Register
 Individual Login Institutional Login
 Quick Search anywhere
 Enter words / phrases / DOI / ISBN / keywords / authors / etc

 * ARTICLES

 + Current Issue
 + Latest Articles
 + Special Features
 + List of Issues
 + PNAS Nexus
 * Front Matter

 * AUTHORS

 + Information for Authors
 + Editorial and Journal Policies
 + Submission Procedures
 + Publication Charges
 * Topics
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Terms of Service Privacy Policy Accessibility
 back
 Physical Sciences

 Featured Topics

 * Physics
 * Chemistry
 * Sustainability Science

 Articles By Topic

 * Applied Mathematics
 * Applied Physical Sciences
 * Astronomy
 * Biophysics and Computational Biology
 * Computer Sciences
 * Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
 * Engineering
 * Environmental Sciences
 * Mathematics
 * Statistics
 back
 Social Sciences

 Featured Topics

 * Anthropology
 * Sustainability Science

 Articles By Topic

 * Demography
 * Economic Sciences
 * Environmental Sciences
 * Political Sciences
 * Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
 back
 Biological Sciences

 Featured Topic

 * Anthropology
 * Sustainability Science

 Articles By Topic

 * Agricultural Sciences
 * Applied Biological Sciences
 * Biochemistry
 * Biophysics and Computational Biology
 * Cell Biology
 * Developmental Biology
 * Ecology
 * Environmental Sciences
 * Evolution
 * Genetics
 * Immunology and Inflammation
 * Medical Sciences
 * Microbiology
 * Neuroscience
 * Pharmacology
 * Physiology
 * Plant Biology
 * Population Biology
 * Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
 * Systems Biology
 back
 Topics
 * Physical Sciences
 * Social Sciences
 * Biological Sciences
 Research Article
 Social Sciences
 Open access
 Share on
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

 Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization

 Christopher A. Bail christopher.bail@duke.edu , Lisa P. Argyle , Taylor W. Brown , +6 , John P. Bumpus , Haohan Chen , M. B. Fallin Hunzaker , Jaemin Lee , Marcus Mann , Friedolin Merhout , and Alexander Volfovsky -6 Authors Info & Affiliations
 Edited by Peter S. Bearman, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved August 9, 2018 (received for review March 20, 2018)
 August 28, 2018
 115 ( 37 ) 9216 - 9221
 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
 336,149 359

 Metrics

 Total views 336,149

 * Last 12 Months 61,431

 Total citations 359

 * Last 12 Months 67
 View all metrics
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Contents
 Vol. 115 | No. 37
 + Significance
 + Abstract
 + Research Design
 + Results
 + Discussion and Conclusion
 + Materials and Methods
 + Data Availability
 + Acknowledgments
 + Supporting Information
 + References
 * 

 Significance

 Social media sites are often blamed for exacerbating political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that prevent people from being exposed to information that contradicts their preexisting beliefs. We conducted a field experiment that offered a large group of Democrats and Republicans financial compensation to follow bots that retweeted messages by elected officials and opinion leaders with opposing political views. Republican participants expressed substantially more conservative views after following a liberal Twitter bot, whereas Democrats’ attitudes became slightly more liberal after following a conservative Twitter bot—although this effect was not statistically significant. Despite several limitations, this study has important implications for the emerging field of computational social science and ongoing efforts to reduce political polarization online.

 Abstract

 There is mounting concern that social media sites contribute to political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that insulate people from opposing views about current events. We surveyed a large sample of Democrats and Republicans who visit Twitter at least three times each week about a range of social policy issues. One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition in which they were offered financial incentives to follow a Twitter bot for 1 month that exposed them to messages from those with opposing political ideologies (e.g., elected officials, opinion leaders, media organizations, and nonprofit groups). Respondents were resurveyed at the end of the month to measure the effect of this treatment, and at regular intervals throughout the study period to monitor treatment compliance. We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment. Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant. Notwithstanding important limitations of our study, these findings have significant implications for the interdisciplinary literature on political polarization and the emerging field of computational social science.

 Sign up for PNAS alerts.

 Get alerts for new articles, or get an alert when an article is cited.

 Manage alerts
 Political polarization in the United States has become a central focus of social scientists in recent decades (1–7). Americans are deeply divided on controversial issues such as inequality, gun control, and immigration—and divisions about such issues have become increasingly aligned with partisan identities in recent years (8, 9). Partisan identification now predicts preferences about a range of social policy issues nearly three times as well as any other demographic factor—such as education or age (10). These partisan divisions not only impede compromise in the design and implementation of social policies but also have far-reaching consequences for the effective function of democracy more broadly (11–15).
 America’s cavernous partisan divides are often attributed to “echo chambers,” or patterns of information sharing that reinforce preexisting political beliefs by limiting exposure to opposing political views (16–20). Concern about selective exposure to information and political polarization has increased in the age of social media (16, 21–23). The vast majority of Americans now visit a social media site at least once each day, and a rapidly growing number of them list social media as their primary source of news (24). Despite initial optimism that social media might enable people to consume more heterogeneous sources of information about current events, there is growing concern that such forums exacerbate political polarization because of social network homophily, or the well-documented tendency of people to form social network ties to those who are similar to themselves (25, 26). The endogenous relationship between social network formation and political attitudes also creates formidable challenges for the study of social media echo chambers and political polarization, since it is notoriously difficult to establish whether social media networks shape political opinions, or vice versa (27–29).
 Here, we report the results of a large field experiment designed to examine whether disrupting selective exposure to partisan information among Twitter users shapes their political attitudes. Our research is governed by three preregistered hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that disrupting selective exposure to partisan information will decrease political polarization because of intergroup contact effects. A vast literature indicates contact between opposing groups can challenge stereotypes that develop in the absence of positive interactions between them (30). Studies also indicate intergroup contact increases the likelihood of deliberation and political compromise (31–33). However, all of these previous studies examine interpersonal contact between members of rival groups. In contrast, our experiment creates virtual contact between members of the public and opinion leaders from the opposing political party on a social media site. It is not yet known whether such virtual contact creates the same type of positive mutual understanding—or whether the relative anonymity of social media forums emboldens people to act in an uncivil manner. Such incivility could be particularly rife in the absence of facial cues and other nonverbal gestures that might prevent the escalation of arguments in offline settings.
 Our second hypothesis builds upon a more recent wave of studies that suggest exposure to those with opposing political views may create backfire effects that exacerbate political polarization (34–37). This literature—which now spans several academic disciplines—indicates people who are exposed to messages that conflict with their own attitudes are prone to counterargue them using motivated reasoning, which accentuates perceived differences between groups and increases their commitment to preexisting beliefs (34–37). Many studies in this literature observe backfire effects via survey experiments where respondents are exposed to information that corrects factual inaccuracies—such as the notion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq—although these findings have failed to replicate in two recent studies (38, 39). Yet our study is not designed to evaluate attempts to correct factual inaccuracies. Instead, we aim to assess the broader impact of prolonged exposure to counterattitudinal messages on social media.
 Our third preregistered hypothesis is that backfire effects will be more likely to occur among conservatives than liberals. This hypothesis builds upon recent studies that indicate conservatives hold values that prioritize certainty and tradition, whereas liberals value change and diversity (40, 41). We also build upon recent studies in cultural sociology that examine the deeper cultural schemas and narratives that create and sustain such value differences (34, 26). Finally, we also build upon studies that observe asymmetric polarization in roll call voting wherein Republicans have become substantially more conservative whereas Democrats exhibit little or no increase in liberal voting positions (42). Although a number of studies have found evidence of this trend, we are not aware of any that examine such dynamics among the broader public—and on social media in particular.

 Research Design

 Fig. 1 provides an overview of our research design. We hired a professional survey firm to recruit self-identified Republicans and Democrats who visit Twitter at least three times each week to complete a 10-min survey in mid-October 2017 and 1.5 mo later. These surveys measure the key outcome variable: change in political ideology during the study period via a 10-item survey instrument that asked respondents to agree or disagree with a range of statements about policy issues on a seven-point scale ( α = . 91 α=.91) (10). Our survey also collected information about other political attitudes, use of social media and conventional media sources, and a range of demographic indicators that we describe in SI Appendix. Finally, all respondents were asked to report their Twitter ID, which we used to mine additional information about their online behavior, including the partisan background of the accounts they follow on Twitter. Our research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Duke University and New York University. All respondents provided informed consent before participating in our research.
 Fig. 1.

 Overview of research design.

 Open in viewer
 We ran separate field experiments for Democratic and Republican respondents, and, within each group, we used a block randomization design that further stratified respondents according to two variables that have been linked to political polarization: (i) level of attachment to political party and (ii) level of interest in current events. We also randomized assignment according to respondents’ frequency of Twitter use, which we reasoned would influence the amount of exposure to the intervention we describe in the following paragraph and thereby the overall likelihood of opinion change.
 We received 1,652 responses to our pretreatment survey (901 Democrats and 751 Republicans). One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition, thus using an “ostensibly unrelated” survey design (43). At this time, respondents in the treatment condition were offered $11 to follow a Twitter bot, or automated Twitter account, that they were told would retweet 24 messages each day for 1 mo. Respondents were not informed of the content of the messages the bots would retweet. As Fig. 2 illustrates, we created a liberal Twitter bot and a conservative Twitter bot for each of our experiments. These bots retweeted messages randomly sampled from a list of 4,176 political Twitter accounts (e.g., elected officials, opinion leaders, media organizations, and nonprofit groups). These accounts were identified via a network-sampling technique that assumes those with similar political ideologies are more likely to follow each other on Twitter than those with opposing political ideologies (44). For further details about the design of the study’s bots, please refer to SI Appendix.
 Fig. 2.

 Design of study’s Twitter bots.

 Open in viewer
 To monitor treatment compliance, respondents were offered additional financial incentives (up to $18) to complete weekly surveys that asked them to answer questions about the content of the tweets produced by the Twitter bots and identify a picture of an animal that was tweeted twice a day by the bot but deleted immediately before the weekly survey. At the conclusion of the study period, respondents were asked to complete a final survey with the same questions from the initial (pretreatment) survey. Of those invited to follow a Twitter bot, 64.9% of Democrats and 57.2% of Republicans accepted our invitation. Approximately 62% of Democrats and Republicans who followed the bots were able to answer all substantive questions about the content of messages retweeted each week, and 50.2% were able to identify the animal picture retweeted each day.

 Results

 Fig. 3 reports the effect of being assigned to the treatment condition, or the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) effects, as well as the Complier Average Causal Effects (CACE) which account for the differential rates of compliance among respondents we observed. These estimates were produced via multivariate models that predict respondents’ posttreatment scores on the liberal/conservative scale described above, controlling for pretreatment scores on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in SI Appendix. We control for respondents’ pretreatment liberal/conservative scale score to mitigate the influence of period effects. Negative scores indicate respondents became more liberal in response to treatment, and positive scores indicate they became more conservative. Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and the horizontal lines in Fig. 3 describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. We measured compliance with treatment in three ways. “Minimally Compliant Respondents” describes those who followed our bot throughout the entire study period. “Partially Compliant Respondents” are those who were able to answer at least one—but not all—questions about the content of one of the bots’ tweets administered each week during the survey period. “Fully Compliant Respondents” are those who successfully answered all of these questions. These last two categories are mutually exclusive.
 Fig. 3.

 Effect of following Twitter bots that retweet messages by elected officials, organizations, and opinion leaders with opposing political ideologies for 1 mo, on a seven-point liberal/conservative scale where larger values indicate more conservative opinions about social policy issues, for experiments with Democrats (n = 697) and Republicans (n = 542). Models predict posttreatment liberal/conservative scale score and control for pretreatment score on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in SI Appendix. Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and bars describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. “Respondents Assigned to Treatment” describes the ITT effect for Democrats (ITT = −0.02, t t = −0.76, p p = 0.45, n n = 416) and Republicans (ITT = 0.12, t t = 2.68, p p = 0.008, n n = 316). “Minimally-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who followed one of the study’s bots for Democrats (CACE = −0.04, t t = −0.75, p p = 0.45, n n of compliant respondents = 271) and Republicans (CACE = 0.19, t t = 2.73, p < p< 0.007, n n of compliant respondents = 181). “Partially-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who correctly answered at least one question, but not all questions, about the content of a bot’s tweets during weekly surveys throughout the study period for Democrats (CACE = −0.05, t t = −0.75, p p = 0.45, n n of compliant respondents = 211) and Republicans (CACE = 0.31, t t = 2.73, p < p<.007, n n of compliant respondents = 121). “Fully-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who answered all questions about the content of the bot’s tweets correctly for Democrats (CACE = −0.14, t t = −0.75, p p = 0.46, n n of compliant respondents = 66) and Republicans (CACE = 0.60, t t = 2.53, p < p< 0.01, n n of compliant respondents = 53). Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. In contrast, treated Republicans exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, and these effects are highly significant.

 Open in viewer
 Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. Treated Republicans, by contrast, exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment. These effects also increase with level of compliance, but they are highly significant. Our most cautious estimate is that treated Republicans increased 0.12 points on a seven-point scale, although our model that estimates the effect of treatment upon fully compliant respondents indicates this effect is substantially larger (0.60 points). These estimates correspond to an increase in conservatism between 0.11 and 0.59 standard deviations.

 Discussion and Conclusion

 Before discussing the implications of these findings, we first note important limitations of our study. Readers should not interpret our findings as evidence that exposure to opposing political views will increase polarization in all settings. Although ours is among the largest field experiments conducted on social media to date, the findings above should not be generalized to the entire US population, because a majority of Americans do not use Twitter (24). It is also unclear how exposure to opposing views might shape political polarization in other parts of the world. In addition, we did not study people who identify as independents, or those who use Twitter but do so infrequently. Such individuals might exhibit quite different reactions to an intervention such as ours. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the external validity of our findings, because we offered our respondents financial incentives to read messages from people or organizations with opposing views. It is possible that Twitter users may simply ignore such counterattitudinal messages in the absence of such incentives. Perhaps the most important limitation of our study is that we were unable to identify the precise mechanism that created the backfire effect among Republican respondents reported above. Future studies are thus urgently needed not only to determine whether our findings replicate in different populations or within varied social settings but to further identify the precise causal pathways that create backfire effects more broadly.
 Future studies are also needed because we cannot rule out all alternative explanations of our findings. In SI Appendix, we present additional analyses that give us confidence that our results are not driven by Hawthorne effects, partisan “learning” processes, variation in the ideological extremity of messages by party, or demographic differences in social media use by age. At the same time, we are unable to rule out other alternative explanations discussed in SI Appendix. For example, it is possible that our findings resulted from increased exposure to information about politics, and not exposure to opposing messages per se. Similarly, increases in conservatism among Republicans may have resulted from increased exposure to women or racial and ethnic minorities whose messages were retweeted by our liberal bot. Finally, our intervention only exposed respondents to high-profile elites with opposing political ideologies. Although our liberal and conservative bots randomly selected messages from across the liberal and conservative spectrum, previous studies indicate such elites are significantly more polarized than the general electorate (45). It is thus possible that the backfire effect we identified could be exacerbated by an antielite bias, and future studies are needed to examine the effect of online intergroup contact with nonelites.
 Despite these limitations, our findings have important implications for current debates in sociology, political science, social psychology, communications, and information science. Although we found no evidence that exposing Twitter users to opposing views reduces political polarization, our study revealed significant partisan differences in backfire effects. This finding is important, since our study examines such effects in an experimental setting that involves repeated contact between rival groups across an extended time period on social media. Our field experiment also disrupts selective exposure to information about politics in a real-world setting through a combination of survey research, bot technology, and digital trace data collection. This methodological innovation enabled us to collect information about the nexus of social media and politics with high granularity while developing techniques for measuring treatment compliance, mitigating causal interference, and verifying survey responses with behavioral data—as we discuss in SI Appendix. Together, we believe these contributions represent an important advance for the nascent field of computational social science (46).
 Although our findings should not be generalized beyond party-identified Americans who use Twitter frequently, we note that recent studies indicate this population has an outsized influence on the trajectory of public discussion—particularly as the media itself has come to rely upon Twitter as a source of news and a window into public opinion (47). Although limited in scope, our findings may be of interest to those who are working to reduce political polarization in applied settings. More specifically, our study indicates that attempts to introduce people to a broad range of opposing political views on a social media site such as Twitter might be not only be ineffective but counterproductive—particularly if such interventions are initiated by liberals. Since previous studies have produced substantial evidence that intergroup contact produces compromise and mutual understanding in other contexts, however, future attempts to reduce political polarization on social media will most likely require learning which types of messages, tactics, or issue positions are most likely to create backfire effects and whether others—perhaps delivered by nonelites or in offline settings—might be more effective vehicles to bridge America’s partisan divides.

 Materials and Methods

 See SI Appendix for a detailed description of all materials and methods used within this study as well as links to our preregistration statement, replication materials, additional robustness checks, and an extended discussion of alternative explanations of our findings. Our research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Duke University and New York University.

 Data Availability

 Data deposition: All data, code, and the markdown file used to create this report will be available at this link on the Dataverse: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse.xhtml?alias=chris_bail.

 Acknowledgments

 We thank Paul DiMaggio, Sunshine Hillygus, Gary King, Fan Li, Arthur Lupia, Brendan Nyhan, and Samantha Luks for helpful conversations about this study prior to our research. Our work was supported by the Carnegie Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.

 Supporting Information

 Appendix (PDF)
 * Download
 * 1.37 MB

 References

 1
 P DiMaggio, J Evans, B Bryson, Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? Am J Sociol 102, 690–755 (1996).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 2
 S Iyengar, SJ Westwood, Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. Am J Polit Sci 59, 690–707 (2015).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 3
 D Baldassarri, A Gelman, Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am J Sociol 114, 408–446 (2008).
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 4
 J Sides, DJ Hopkins Political Polarization in American Politics (Bloomsbury, London, 2015).
 Google Scholar
 5
 D Baldassarri, P Bearman, Dynamics of political polarization. Am Sociol Rev 72, 784–811 (2007).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 6
 MP Fiorina, SJ Abrams, Political polarization in the American public. Annu Rev Polit Sci 11, 563–588 (2008).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 7
 D DellaPosta, Y Shi, M Macy, Why do liberals drink lattes? Am J Sociol 120, 1473–1511 (2015).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 8
 M Levendusky The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 9
 L Mason Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, 2018).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 10
 M Dimock, D Carroll, Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise, and everyday life (Pew Res Cent, Washington, DC). (2014).
 Google Scholar
 11
 CH Achen, LM Bartels Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2016).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 12
 RS Erikson, GC Wright, JP McIver Public Opinion and Policy in the American States (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993).
 Google Scholar
 13
 JS Fishkin When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2011).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 14
 WL Bennett, S Iyengar, A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. J Commun 58, 707–731 (2008).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 15
 C Sunstein Republic.com (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2002).
 Go to reference
 Google Scholar
 16
 E Bakshy, S Messing, LA Adamic, Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 17
 C Sunstein Echo Chambers, Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2001).
 Google Scholar
 18
 G King, B Schneer, A White, How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science 358, 776–780 (2017).
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 19
 JM Berry, S Sobieraj The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2013).
 Google Scholar
 20
 M Prior, Media and political polarization. Annu Rev Polit Sci 16, 101–127 (2013).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 21
 E Pariser The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think (Penguin, New York, 2011).
 Go to reference
 Google Scholar
 22
 M Conover, J Ratkiewicz, M Francisco, Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM 133, 89–96 (2011).
 Google Scholar
 23
 L Boxell, M Gentzkow, JM Shapiro, Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among us demographic groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114, 10612–10617 (2017).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 24
 A Perrin, Social media usage: 2005-2015 (Pew Res Cent, Washington, DC). (2015).
 Google Scholar
 25
 M McPherson, L Smith-lovin, JM Cook, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27, 415–444 (2001).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 26
 A Edelmann, S Vaisey, Cultural resources and cultural distinction in networks. Poetics 46, 22–37 (2014).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 27
 D Lazer, B Rubineau, C Chetkovich, N Katz, M Neblo, The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Polit Commun 27, 248–274 (2010).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 28
 D Centola, An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334, 1269–1272 (2011).
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 29
 S Vaisey, O Lizardo, Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? Social Forces 88, 1595–1618 (2010).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 30
 TF Pettigrew, LR Tropp, A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90, 751–783 (2006).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 31
 R Huckfeldt, PE Johnson, J Sprague Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 32
 DC Mutz, Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. Am Polit Sci Rev 96, 111–126 (2002).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 33
 K Grönlund, K Herne, M Setälä, Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Polit Behav 37, 995–1020 (2015).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 34
 C Bail Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2015).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 35
 CG Lord, L Ross, MR Lepper, Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37, 2098–2109 (1979).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 36
 B Nyhan, J Reifler, When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32, 303–330 (2010).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 37
 CS Taber, M Lodge, Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 50, 755–769 (2006).
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 38
 T Wood, E Porter, The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav, pp. 1–29 (2016).
 Go to reference
 Google Scholar
 39
 T Wood, E Porter, The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav, 2018).
 Go to reference
 Google Scholar
 40
 J Graham, J Haidt, BA Nosek, Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J Pers Social Psychol 96, 1029–1046 (2009).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 41
 JT Jost, et al., Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33, 989–1007 (2007).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 42
 M Grossmann, DA Hopkins Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2016).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 43
 D Broockman, J Kalla, Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 44
 P Barberá, Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Polit Anal 23, 76–91 (2014).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 45
 AI Abramowitz, KL Saunders, Is polarization a myth? J Polit 70, 542–555 (2008).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 Google Scholar
 46
 D Lazer, et al., Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science 323, 721–723 (2009).
 Go to reference
 Crossref
 PubMed
 Google Scholar
 47
 R Faris, et al., Partisanship, Propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 U.S. presidential election, (Berkman Klein Cent Internet Soc Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA). (2017).
 Go to reference
 Google Scholar
 Show all references
 View full text Download PDF
 Open in viewer

 Go to
 Go to
 * 
 Show all references
 Request permissions Expand All
 Collapse
 EXPAND FOR MORE
 Authors Info & Affiliations

 Further reading in this issue

 * Research Article August 27, 2018

 Telomere shortening is a hallmark of genetic cardiomyopathies

 + Alex C. Y. Chang,
 + Andrew C. H. Chang,
 + Anna Kirillova,
 + Koki Sasagawa,
 + Willis Su,
 + Gerhard Weber,
 + Jue Lin,
 + Vittavat Termglinchan,
 + Ioannis Karakikes,
 + Timon Seeger,
 + Alexandra M. Dainis,
 + John T. Hinson,
 + Jonathan Seidman,
 + Christine E. Seidman,
 + John W. Day,
 + Euan Ashley,
 + Joseph C. Wu,
 + [...]
 + Helen M. Blau,
 + +15 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Perspective August 23, 2018

 Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance

 + Oran R. Young,
 + D. G. Webster,
 + Michael E. Cox,
 + Jesper Raakjær,
 + Lau Øfjord Blaxekjær,
 + Níels Einarsson,
 + Ross A. Virginia,
 + James Acheson,
 + Daniel Bromley,
 + Emma Cardwell,
 + Courtney Carothers,
 + Einar Eythórsson,
 + Richard B. Howarth,
 + Svein Jentoft,
 + Bonnie J. McCay,
 + Fiona McCormack,
 + Gail Osherenko,
 + Evelyn Pinkerton,
 + Rob van Ginkel,
 + James A. Wilson,
 + Louie Rivers,
 + [...]
 + Robyn S. Wilson,
 + +19 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Research Article August 27, 2018

 Conformational changes in Arp2/3 complex induced by ATP, WASp-VCA, and actin filaments

 + Sofia Espinoza-Sanchez,
 + Lauren Ann Metskas,
 + Steven Z. Chou,
 + Elizabeth Rhoades,
 + [...]
 + Thomas D. Pollard,
 + +2 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Most Read
 * Most Cited
 * Research Article December 30, 2013

 Bodily maps of emotions

 Emotions coordinate our behavior and physiological states during survival-salient events and pleasurable interactions. Even though we are often consciously aware of our current emotional state, such as anger or happiness, the mechanisms giving ...Emotions are often felt in the body, and somatosensory feedback has been proposed to trigger conscious emotional experiences. Here we reveal maps of bodily sensations associated with different emotions using a unique topographical self-report method. In ...
 + Lauri Nummenmaa,
 + Enrico Glerean,
 + Riitta Hari,
 + [...]
 + Jari K. Hietanen,
 + +1 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Research Article June 11, 2018

 Neural network retuning and neural predictors of learning success associated with cello training

 In sophisticated auditory–motor learning such as musical instrument learning, little is understood about how brain plasticity develops over time and how the related individual variability is reflected in the neural architecture. In a ...The auditory and motor neural systems are closely intertwined, enabling people to carry out tasks such as playing a musical instrument whose mapping between action and sound is extremely sophisticated. While the dorsal auditory stream has been shown to ...
 + Indiana Wollman,
 + Virginia Penhune,
 + Melanie Segado,
 + Thibaut Carpentier,
 + [...]
 + Robert J. Zatorre,
 + +2 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Research Article August 14, 2017

 Oxytocin-enforced norm compliance reduces xenophobic outgroup rejection

 In the midst of rapid globalization, the peaceful coexistence of cultures requires a deeper understanding of the forces that compel prosocial behavior and thwart xenophobia. Yet, the conditions promoting such outgroup-directed altruism have ...Never before have individuals had to adapt to social environments defined by such magnitudes of ethnic diversity and cultural differentiation. However, neurobiological evidence informing about strategies to reduce xenophobic sentiment and foster ...
 + Nina Marsh,
 + Dirk Scheele,
 + Justin S. Feinstein,
 + Holger Gerhardt,
 + Sabrina Strang,
 + Wolfgang Maier,
 + [...]
 + René Hurlemann,
 + +4 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Research Article September 30, 2005

 Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles

 Although genomewide RNA expression analysis has become a routine tool in biomedical research, extracting biological insight from such information remains a major challenge. Here, we describe a powerful analytical method called Gene Set Enrichment Analysis ...
 + Aravind Subramanian,
 + Pablo Tamayo,
 + Vamsi K. Mootha,
 + Sayan Mukherjee,
 + Benjamin L. Ebert,
 + Michael A. Gillette,
 + Amanda Paulovich,
 + Scott L. Pomeroy,
 + Todd R. Golub,
 + Eric S. Lander,
 + [...]
 + Jill P. Mesirov and
 + +8 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Research Article June 3, 2010

 Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample

 The ongoing revolution in high-throughput sequencing continues to democratize the ability of small groups of investigators to map the microbial component of the biosphere. In particular, the coevolution of new sequencing platforms and new software tools ...
 + J. Gregory Caporaso,
 + Christian L. Lauber,
 + William A. Walters,
 + Donna Berg-Lyons,
 + Catherine A. Lozupone,
 + Peter J. Turnbaugh,
 + Noah Fierer,
 + [...]
 + Rob Knight,
 + +5 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 * Research Article June 11, 2002

 Community structure in social and biological networks

 A number of recent studies have focused on the statistical properties of networked systems such as social networks and the Worldwide Web. Researchers have concentrated particularly on a few properties that seem to be common to many networks: the ...
 + M. Girvan,
 + [...]
 + M. E. J. Newman and
 + +0 authors
 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory

 Recommended articles

 Research Article November 25, 2019

 Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017

 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 Research Article June 11, 2020

 Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans

 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory
 Research Article September 30, 2022 view on pnas nexus

 Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy

 This is an addendum to Complex viscosity of helical and doubly helical polymeric liquids from general rigid bead-rod theory

 Sign up for the PNAS Highlights newsletter

 Get in-depth science stories sent to your inbox twice a month.
 Subscribe
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 Browse
 * Current Issue
 * PNAS Nexus
 * Special Features
 * Colloquia
 * List of Issues
 * Collected Papers
 * PNAS In The News
 * Front Matter
 * Journal Club
 * Podcasts
 Information
 * About
 * Diversity and Inclusion
 * Editorial Board
 * Authors
 * Reviewers
 * Subscribers
 * Librarians
 * Press
 * Cozzarelli Prize
 * PNAS Updates
 Back to top

 Copyright © 2023 National Academy of Science. All rights reserved. | Online ISSN 1091-6490

 PNAS is a partner of CHORUS, CLOCKSS, COPE, CrossRef, ORCID, and Research4Life.

 * Contact
 * Site Map
 * Terms & Privacy Policy
 * Accessibility

 Request Username

 x Close

 Can't sign in? Forgot your username?
 Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

 Email
 Submit

 If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

 Create a new account

 x Close
 Email
 Returning user
 Submit

 We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using this website, you are giving your consent for us to set cookies. Find out more

 CONTINUE

 Login

 x Close
 Email *
 Password *
 Forgot your password? Reset it here
 Keep me logged in
 Login
 Don’t have an account? Register here
 Institutional Login

 Change Password

 x Close
 Enter the verification code
 Submit

 Congrats!

 Your Phone has been verified

 
 
 1800
 1801
 1802
 1803
 1804
 Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
 Share
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 







 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 FiguresTables
 View figure
 Fig. 1.
 Overview of research design.
 View figure
 Fig. 2.
 Design of study’s Twitter bots.
 View figure
 Fig. 3.
 Effect of following Twitter bots that retweet messages by elected officials, organizations, and opinion leaders with opposing political ideologies for 1 mo, on a seven-point liberal/conservative scale where larger values indicate more conservative opinions about social policy issues, for experiments with Democrats (n = 697) and Republicans (n = 542). Models predict posttreatment liberal/conservative scale score and control for pretreatment score on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in SI Appendix. Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and bars describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. “Respondents Assigned to Treatment” describes the ITT effect for Democrats (ITT = −0.02, t t = −0.76, p p = 0.45, n n = 416) and Republicans (ITT = 0.12, t t = 2.68, p p = 0.008, n n = 316). “Minimally-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who followed one of the study’s bots for Democrats (CACE = −0.04, t t = −0.75, p p = 0.45, n n of compliant respondents = 271) and Republicans (CACE = 0.19, t t = 2.73, p < p< 0.007, n n of compliant respondents = 181). “Partially-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who correctly answered at least one question, but not all questions, about the content of a bot’s tweets during weekly surveys throughout the study period for Democrats (CACE = −0.05, t t = −0.75, p p = 0.45, n n of compliant respondents = 211) and Republicans (CACE = 0.31, t t = 2.73, p < p<.007, n n of compliant respondents = 121). “Fully-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who answered all questions about the content of the bot’s tweets correctly for Democrats (CACE = −0.14, t t = −0.75, p p = 0.46, n n of compliant respondents = 66) and Republicans (CACE = 0.60, t t = 2.53, p < p< 0.01, n n of compliant respondents = 53). Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. In contrast, treated Republicans exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, and these effects are highly significant.
 Reference # 1
 PDFHelp
Edited by Peter S. Bearman, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved August 9, 2018 (received for review March 20, 2018)   August 28, 2018 115 (37) 9216-9221      Significance Social media sites are often blamed for exacerbating political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that prevent people from being exposed to information that contradicts their preexisting beliefs. We conducted a field experiment that offered a large group of Democrats and Republicans financial compensation to follow bots that retweeted messages by elected officials and opinion leaders with opposing political views. Republican participants expressed substantially more conservative views after following a liberal Twitter bot, whereas Democrats’ attitudes became slightly more liberal after following a conservative Twitter bot—although this effect was not statistically significant. Despite several limitations, this study has important implications for the emerging field of computational social science and ongoing efforts to reduce political polarization online.   Abstract There is mounting concern that social media sites contribute to political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that insulate people from opposing views about current events. We surveyed a large sample of Democrats and Republicans who visit Twitter at least three times each week about a range of social policy issues. One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition in which they were offered financial incentives to follow a Twitter bot for 1 month that exposed them to messages from those with opposing political ideologies (e.g., elected officials, opinion leaders, media organizations, and nonprofit groups). Respondents were resurveyed at the end of the month to measure the effect of this treatment, and at regular intervals throughout the study period to monitor treatment compliance. We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment. Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant. Notwithstanding important limitations of our study, these findings have significant implications for the interdisciplinary literature on political polarization and the emerging field of computational social science. 
 
 
 
 Sign up for PNAS alerts.
 Get alerts for new articles, or get an alert when an article is cited.
 
  Political polarization in the United States has become a central focus of social scientists in recent decades (1–7). Americans are deeply divided on controversial issues such as inequality, gun control, and immigration—and divisions about such issues have become increasingly aligned with partisan identities in recent years (8, 9). Partisan identification now predicts preferences about a range of social policy issues nearly three times as well as any other demographic factor—such as education or age (10). These partisan divisions not only impede compromise in the design and implementation of social policies but also have far-reaching consequences for the effective function of democracy more broadly (11–15). America’s cavernous partisan divides are often attributed to “echo chambers,” or patterns of information sharing that reinforce preexisting political beliefs by limiting exposure to opposing political views (16–20). Concern about selective exposure to information and political polarization has increased in the age of social media (16, 21–23). The vast majority of Americans now visit a social media site at least once each day, and a rapidly growing number of them list social media as their primary source of news (24). Despite initial optimism that social media might enable people to consume more heterogeneous sources of information about current events, there is growing concern that such forums exacerbate political polarization because of social network homophily, or the well-documented tendency of people to form social network ties to those who are similar to themselves (25, 26). The endogenous relationship between social network formation and political attitudes also creates formidable challenges for the study of social media echo chambers and political polarization, since it is notoriously difficult to establish whether social media networks shape political opinions, or vice versa (27–29). Here, we report the results of a large field experiment designed to examine whether disrupting selective exposure to partisan information among Twitter users shapes their political attitudes. Our research is governed by three preregistered hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that disrupting selective exposure to partisan information will decrease political polarization because of intergroup contact effects. A vast literature indicates contact between opposing groups can challenge stereotypes that develop in the absence of positive interactions between them (30). Studies also indicate intergroup contact increases the likelihood of deliberation and political compromise (31–33). However, all of these previous studies examine interpersonal contact between members of rival groups. In contrast, our experiment creates virtual contact between members of the public and opinion leaders from the opposing political party on a social media site. It is not yet known whether such virtual contact creates the same type of positive mutual understanding—or whether the relative anonymity of social media forums emboldens people to act in an uncivil manner. Such incivility could be particularly rife in the absence of facial cues and other nonverbal gestures that might prevent the escalation of arguments in offline settings. Our second hypothesis builds upon a more recent wave of studies that suggest exposure to those with opposing political views may create backfire effects that exacerbate political polarization (34–37). This literature—which now spans several academic disciplines—indicates people who are exposed to messages that conflict with their own attitudes are prone to counterargue them using motivated reasoning, which accentuates perceived differences between groups and increases their commitment to preexisting beliefs (34–37). Many studies in this literature observe backfire effects via survey experiments where respondents are exposed to information that corrects factual inaccuracies—such as the notion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq—although these findings have failed to replicate in two recent studies (38, 39). Yet our study is not designed to evaluate attempts to correct factual inaccuracies. Instead, we aim to assess the broader impact of prolonged exposure to counterattitudinal messages on social media. Our third preregistered hypothesis is that backfire effects will be more likely to occur among conservatives than liberals. This hypothesis builds upon recent studies that indicate conservatives hold values that prioritize certainty and tradition, whereas liberals value change and diversity (40, 41). We also build upon recent studies in cultural sociology that examine the deeper cultural schemas and narratives that create and sustain such value differences (34, 26). Finally, we also build upon studies that observe asymmetric polarization in roll call voting wherein Republicans have become substantially more conservative whereas Democrats exhibit little or no increase in liberal voting positions (42). Although a number of studies have found evidence of this trend, we are not aware of any that examine such dynamics among the broader public—and on social media in particular.  Research Design  Fig. 1 provides an overview of our research design. We hired a professional survey firm to recruit self-identified Republicans and Democrats who visit Twitter at least three times each week to complete a 10-min survey in mid-October 2017 and 1.5 mo later. These surveys measure the key outcome variable: change in political ideology during the study period via a 10-item survey instrument that asked respondents to agree or disagree with a range of statements about policy issues on a seven-point scale (α=.91) (10). Our survey also collected information about other political attitudes, use of social media and conventional media sources, and a range of demographic indicators that we describe in  SI Appendix . Finally, all respondents were asked to report their Twitter ID, which we used to mine additional information about their online behavior, including the partisan background of the accounts they follow on Twitter. Our research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Duke University and New York University. All respondents provided informed consent before participating in our research.   Fig. 1.     Overview of research design.   Open in viewer   We ran separate field experiments for Democratic and Republican respondents, and, within each group, we used a block randomization design that further stratified respondents according to two variables that have been linked to political polarization: (i) level of attachment to political party and (ii) level of interest in current events. We also randomized assignment according to respondents’ frequency of Twitter use, which we reasoned would influence the amount of exposure to the intervention we describe in the following paragraph and thereby the overall likelihood of opinion change. We received 1,652 responses to our pretreatment survey (901 Democrats and 751 Republicans). One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition, thus using an “ostensibly unrelated” survey design (43). At this time, respondents in the treatment condition were offered $11 to follow a Twitter bot, or automated Twitter account, that they were told would retweet 24 messages each day for 1 mo. Respondents were not informed of the content of the messages the bots would retweet. As Fig. 2 illustrates, we created a liberal Twitter bot and a conservative Twitter bot for each of our experiments. These bots retweeted messages randomly sampled from a list of 4,176 political Twitter accounts (e.g., elected officials, opinion leaders, media organizations, and nonprofit groups). These accounts were identified via a network-sampling technique that assumes those with similar political ideologies are more likely to follow each other on Twitter than those with opposing political ideologies (44). For further details about the design of the study’s bots, please refer to  SI Appendix .   Fig. 2.     Design of study’s Twitter bots.   Open in viewer   To monitor treatment compliance, respondents were offered additional financial incentives (up to $18) to complete weekly surveys that asked them to answer questions about the content of the tweets produced by the Twitter bots and identify a picture of an animal that was tweeted twice a day by the bot but deleted immediately before the weekly survey. At the conclusion of the study period, respondents were asked to complete a final survey with the same questions from the initial (pretreatment) survey. Of those invited to follow a Twitter bot, 64.9% of Democrats and 57.2% of Republicans accepted our invitation. Approximately 62% of Democrats and Republicans who followed the bots were able to answer all substantive questions about the content of messages retweeted each week, and 50.2% were able to identify the animal picture retweeted each day.   Results  Fig. 3 reports the effect of being assigned to the treatment condition, or the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) effects, as well as the Complier Average Causal Effects (CACE) which account for the differential rates of compliance among respondents we observed. These estimates were produced via multivariate models that predict respondents’ posttreatment scores on the liberal/conservative scale described above, controlling for pretreatment scores on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in  SI Appendix . We control for respondents’ pretreatment liberal/conservative scale score to mitigate the influence of period effects. Negative scores indicate respondents became more liberal in response to treatment, and positive scores indicate they became more conservative. Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and the horizontal lines in Fig. 3 describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. We measured compliance with treatment in three ways. “Minimally Compliant Respondents” describes those who followed our bot throughout the entire study period. “Partially Compliant Respondents” are those who were able to answer at least one—but not all—questions about the content of one of the bots’ tweets administered each week during the survey period. “Fully Compliant Respondents” are those who successfully answered all of these questions. These last two categories are mutually exclusive.   Fig. 3.     Effect of following Twitter bots that retweet messages by elected officials, organizations, and opinion leaders with opposing political ideologies for 1 mo, on a seven-point liberal/conservative scale where larger values indicate more conservative opinions about social policy issues, for experiments with Democrats (n = 697) and Republicans (n = 542). Models predict posttreatment liberal/conservative scale score and control for pretreatment score on this scale as well as 12 other covariates described in  SI Appendix . Circles describe unstandardized point estimates, and bars describe 90% and 95% confidence intervals. “Respondents Assigned to Treatment” describes the ITT effect for Democrats (ITT = −0.02, t = −0.76, p = 0.45, n = 416) and Republicans (ITT = 0.12, t = 2.68, p = 0.008, n = 316). “Minimally-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who followed one of the study’s bots for Democrats (CACE = −0.04, t = −0.75, p = 0.45, n of compliant respondents = 271) and Republicans (CACE = 0.19, t = 2.73, p&lt; 0.007, n of compliant respondents = 181). “Partially-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who correctly answered at least one question, but not all questions, about the content of a bot’s tweets during weekly surveys throughout the study period for Democrats (CACE = −0.05, t = −0.75, p = 0.45, n of compliant respondents = 211) and Republicans (CACE = 0.31, t = 2.73, p&lt;.007, n of compliant respondents = 121). “Fully-Compliant Respondents” describes the CACE for respondents who answered all questions about the content of the bot’s tweets correctly for Democrats (CACE = −0.14, t = −0.75, p = 0.46, n of compliant respondents = 66) and Republicans (CACE = 0.60, t = 2.53, p&lt; 0.01, n of compliant respondents = 53). Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. In contrast, treated Republicans exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, and these effects are highly significant.   Open in viewer   Although treated Democrats exhibited slightly more liberal attitudes posttreatment that increase in size with level of compliance, none of these effects were statistically significant. Treated Republicans, by contrast, exhibited substantially more conservative views posttreatment. These effects also increase with level of compliance, but they are highly significant. Our most cautious estimate is that treated Republicans increased 0.12 points on a seven-point scale, although our model that estimates the effect of treatment upon fully compliant respondents indicates this effect is substantially larger (0.60 points). These estimates correspond to an increase in conservatism between 0.11 and 0.59 standard deviations.   Discussion and Conclusion Before discussing the implications of these findings, we first note important limitations of our study. Readers should not interpret our findings as evidence that exposure to opposing political views will increase polarization in all settings. Although ours is among the largest field experiments conducted on social media to date, the findings above should not be generalized to the entire US population, because a majority of Americans do not use Twitter (24). It is also unclear how exposure to opposing views might shape political polarization in other parts of the world. In addition, we did not study people who identify as independents, or those who use Twitter but do so infrequently. Such individuals might exhibit quite different reactions to an intervention such as ours. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the external validity of our findings, because we offered our respondents financial incentives to read messages from people or organizations with opposing views. It is possible that Twitter users may simply ignore such counterattitudinal messages in the absence of such incentives. Perhaps the most important limitation of our study is that we were unable to identify the precise mechanism that created the backfire effect among Republican respondents reported above. Future studies are thus urgently needed not only to determine whether our findings replicate in different populations or within varied social settings but to further identify the precise causal pathways that create backfire effects more broadly. Future studies are also needed because we cannot rule out all alternative explanations of our findings. In  SI Appendix , we present additional analyses that give us confidence that our results are not driven by Hawthorne effects, partisan “learning” processes, variation in the ideological extremity of messages by party, or demographic differences in social media use by age. At the same time, we are unable to rule out other alternative explanations discussed in  SI Appendix . For example, it is possible that our findings resulted from increased exposure to information about politics, and not exposure to opposing messages per se. Similarly, increases in conservatism among Republicans may have resulted from increased exposure to women or racial and ethnic minorities whose messages were retweeted by our liberal bot. Finally, our intervention only exposed respondents to high-profile elites with opposing political ideologies. Although our liberal and conservative bots randomly selected messages from across the liberal and conservative spectrum, previous studies indicate such elites are significantly more polarized than the general electorate (45). It is thus possible that the backfire effect we identified could be exacerbated by an antielite bias, and future studies are needed to examine the effect of online intergroup contact with nonelites. Despite these limitations, our findings have important implications for current debates in sociology, political science, social psychology, communications, and information science. Although we found no evidence that exposing Twitter users to opposing views reduces political polarization, our study revealed significant partisan differences in backfire effects. This finding is important, since our study examines such effects in an experimental setting that involves repeated contact between rival groups across an extended time period on social media. Our field experiment also disrupts selective exposure to information about politics in a real-world setting through a combination of survey research, bot technology, and digital trace data collection. This methodological innovation enabled us to collect information about the nexus of social media and politics with high granularity while developing techniques for measuring treatment compliance, mitigating causal interference, and verifying survey responses with behavioral data—as we discuss in  SI Appendix . Together, we believe these contributions represent an important advance for the nascent field of computational social science (46). Although our findings should not be generalized beyond party-identified Americans who use Twitter frequently, we note that recent studies indicate this population has an outsized influence on the trajectory of public discussion—particularly as the media itself has come to rely upon Twitter as a source of news and a window into public opinion (47). Although limited in scope, our findings may be of interest to those who are working to reduce political polarization in applied settings. More specifically, our study indicates that attempts to introduce people to a broad range of opposing political views on a social media site such as Twitter might be not only be ineffective but counterproductive—particularly if such interventions are initiated by liberals. Since previous studies have produced substantial evidence that intergroup contact produces compromise and mutual understanding in other contexts, however, future attempts to reduce political polarization on social media will most likely require learning which types of messages, tactics, or issue positions are most likely to create backfire effects and whether others—perhaps delivered by nonelites or in offline settings—might be more effective vehicles to bridge America’s partisan divides.   Materials and Methods See  SI Appendix  for a detailed description of all materials and methods used within this study as well as links to our preregistration statement, replication materials, additional robustness checks, and an extended discussion of alternative explanations of our findings. Our research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Duke University and New York University.     Data Availability   Acknowledgments We thank Paul DiMaggio, Sunshine Hillygus, Gary King, Fan Li, Arthur Lupia, Brendan Nyhan, and Samantha Luks for helpful conversations about this study prior to our research. Our work was supported by the Carnegie Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the National Science Foundation.   Supporting Information    Download  1.37 MB     References   1  P DiMaggio, J Evans, B Bryson, Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? Am J Sociol 102, 690–755 (1996).    2  S Iyengar, SJ Westwood, Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. Am J Polit Sci 59, 690–707 (2015).    3  D Baldassarri, A Gelman, Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am J Sociol 114, 408–446 (2008).    4  J Sides, DJ Hopkins Political Polarization in American Politics (Bloomsbury, London, 2015).    5  D Baldassarri, P Bearman, Dynamics of political polarization. Am Sociol Rev 72, 784–811 (2007).    6  MP Fiorina, SJ Abrams, Political polarization in the American public. Annu Rev Polit Sci 11, 563–588 (2008).    7  D DellaPosta, Y Shi, M Macy, Why do liberals drink lattes? Am J Sociol 120, 1473–1511 (2015).    8  M Levendusky The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009).    9  L Mason Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, 2018).    10  M Dimock, D Carroll, Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise, and everyday life (Pew Res Cent, Washington, DC). (2014).    11  CH Achen, LM Bartels Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2016).    12  RS Erikson, GC Wright, JP McIver Public Opinion and Policy in the American States (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993).    13  JS Fishkin When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2011).    14  WL Bennett, S Iyengar, A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. J Commun 58, 707–731 (2008).    15  C Sunstein Republic.com (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2002).    16  E Bakshy, S Messing, LA Adamic, Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).    17  C Sunstein Echo Chambers, Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2001).    18  G King, B Schneer, A White, How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science 358, 776–780 (2017).    19  JM Berry, S Sobieraj The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2013).    20  M Prior, Media and political polarization. Annu Rev Polit Sci 16, 101–127 (2013).    21  E Pariser The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think (Penguin, New York, 2011).    22  M Conover, J Ratkiewicz, M Francisco, Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM 133, 89–96 (2011).    23  L Boxell, M Gentzkow, JM Shapiro, Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among us demographic groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114, 10612–10617 (2017).    24  A Perrin, Social media usage: 2005-2015 (Pew Res Cent, Washington, DC). (2015).    25  M McPherson, L Smith-lovin, JM Cook, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27, 415–444 (2001).    26  A Edelmann, S Vaisey, Cultural resources and cultural distinction in networks. Poetics 46, 22–37 (2014).    27  D Lazer, B Rubineau, C Chetkovich, N Katz, M Neblo, The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Polit Commun 27, 248–274 (2010).    28  D Centola, An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334, 1269–1272 (2011).    29  S Vaisey, O Lizardo, Can cultural worldviews influence network composition? Social Forces 88, 1595–1618 (2010).    30  TF Pettigrew, LR Tropp, A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90, 751–783 (2006).    31  R Huckfeldt, PE Johnson, J Sprague Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004).    32  DC Mutz, Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. Am Polit Sci Rev 96, 111–126 (2002).    33  K Grönlund, K Herne, M Setälä, Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Polit Behav 37, 995–1020 (2015).    34  C Bail Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2015).    35  CG Lord, L Ross, MR Lepper, Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37, 2098–2109 (1979).    36  B Nyhan, J Reifler, When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32, 303–330 (2010).    37  CS Taber, M Lodge, Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 50, 755–769 (2006).    38  T Wood, E Porter, The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav, pp. 1–29 (2016).    39  T Wood, E Porter, The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav, 2018).    40  J Graham, J Haidt, BA Nosek, Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J Pers Social Psychol 96, 1029–1046 (2009).    41  JT Jost, et al., Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33, 989–1007 (2007).    42  M Grossmann, DA Hopkins Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, 2016).    43  D Broockman, J Kalla, Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).    44  P Barberá, Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Polit Anal 23, 76–91 (2014).    45  AI Abramowitz, KL Saunders, Is polarization a myth? J Polit 70, 542–555 (2008).    46  D Lazer, et al., Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science 323, 721–723 (2009).    47  R Faris, et al., Partisanship, Propaganda, and disinformation: Online media and the 2016 U.S. presidential election, (Berkman Klein Cent Internet Soc Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA). (2017).
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115