• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用移动聊天平台减少美国的政治极化。

Reducing political polarization in the United States with a mobile chat platform.

机构信息

Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

出版信息

Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Sep;7(9):1454-1461. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01655-0. Epub 2023 Aug 21.

DOI:10.1038/s41562-023-01655-0
PMID:37604989
Abstract

Do anonymous online conversations between people with different political views exacerbate or mitigate partisan polarization? We created a mobile chat platform to study the impact of such discussions. Our study recruited Republicans and Democrats in the United States to complete a survey about their political views. We later randomized them into treatment conditions where they were offered financial incentives to use our platform to discuss a contentious policy issue with an opposing partisan. We found that people who engage in anonymous cross-party conversations about political topics exhibit substantial decreases in polarization compared with a placebo group that wrote an essay using the same conversation prompts. Moreover, these depolarizing effects were correlated with the civility of dialogue between study participants. Our findings demonstrate the potential for well-designed social media platforms to mitigate political polarization and underscore the need for a flexible platform for scientific research on social media.

摘要

人们在网络上进行匿名的跨党派对话,会加剧还是缓和党派极化现象?我们创建了一个移动聊天平台来研究此类讨论的影响。我们的研究招募了美国的共和党人和民主党人来完成一份关于他们政治观点的调查。之后,我们将他们随机分配到不同的处理条件下,他们可以获得经济激励,使用我们的平台与对立党派的人讨论一个有争议的政策问题。我们发现,与使用相同对话提示写一篇文章的对照组相比,那些参与关于政治话题的匿名跨党派对话的人表现出了明显的极化程度降低。此外,这些去极化效应与研究参与者之间对话的文明程度相关。我们的研究结果表明,精心设计的社交媒体平台有可能缓解政治极化现象,并强调需要一个灵活的平台来进行社交媒体的科学研究。

相似文献

1
Reducing political polarization in the United States with a mobile chat platform.利用移动聊天平台减少美国的政治极化。
Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Sep;7(9):1454-1461. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01655-0. Epub 2023 Aug 21.
2
Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide.感知美国的政治极化:党派认同强度和态度极端性加剧了感知到的党派分歧。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015 Mar;10(2):145-58. doi: 10.1177/1745691615569849.
3
Reducing opinion polarization: Effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views.减少意见极化:接触观点不同但相似的人所产生的影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Dec 28;118(52). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2112552118.
4
Beyond partisan filters: Can underreported news reduce issue polarization?超越党派偏见:未被报道的新闻能否减少问题的极化?
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 16;19(2):e0297808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297808. eCollection 2024.
5
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.社交媒体上接触对立观点会加剧政治极化。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Sep 11;115(37):9216-9221. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1804840115. Epub 2018 Aug 28.
6
Generically partisan: Polarization in political communication.一般党派偏见:政治传播中的极化现象。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Nov 21;120(47):e2309361120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2309361120. Epub 2023 Nov 13.
7
Partisan self-interest is an important driver for people's support for the regulation of targeted political advertising.党派私利是人们支持监管定向政治广告的重要驱动因素。
PLoS One. 2021 May 12;16(5):e0250506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250506. eCollection 2021.
8
An Online experiment during the 2020 US-Iran crisis shows that exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization.一项针对 2020 年美伊危机的在线实验表明,接触共同的敌人可能会加剧政治极化。
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 11;12(1):19304. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23673-0.
9
Opposing views: associations of political polarization, political party affiliation, and social trust with COVID-19 vaccination intent and receipt.对立观点:政治两极化、政党归属和社会信任与 COVID-19 疫苗接种意愿和接种情况的关联。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2023 Mar 14;45(1):36-39. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab401.
10
Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement about facts.党派之争对内容审核的影响不仅仅是对事实的分歧。
Sci Adv. 2023 Nov 3;9(44):eadg6799. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adg6799.

引用本文的文献

1
Understanding the success and failure of online political debate: Experimental evidence using large language models.理解在线政治辩论的成败:使用大语言模型的实验证据
Sci Adv. 2025 Jul 25;11(30):eadv7864. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adv7864. Epub 2025 Jul 23.
2
EEG reveals the cognitive impact of polarized content in short video scenarios.脑电图揭示了短视频场景中极化内容对认知的影响。
Sci Rep. 2025 May 25;15(1):18277. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-02423-y.
3
How AI sources can increase openness to opposing views.人工智能资源如何能够增强对反对观点的开放性。

本文引用的文献

1
An Online experiment during the 2020 US-Iran crisis shows that exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization.一项针对 2020 年美伊危机的在线实验表明,接触共同的敌人可能会加剧政治极化。
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 11;12(1):19304. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23673-0.
2
Interventions to reduce partisan animosity.减少党派敌意的干预措施。
Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Sep;6(9):1194-1205. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01442-3. Epub 2022 Sep 19.
3
The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments.
Sci Rep. 2025 May 17;15(1):17170. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-00791-z.
4
Divergence between predicted and actual perception of climate information.气候信息预测与实际认知之间的差异。
PNAS Nexus. 2025 Mar 18;4(3):pgaf084. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf084. eCollection 2025 Mar.
5
Unraveling polarization: insights into individual and collective dynamics.解析极化:洞察个体与集体动态
PNAS Nexus. 2024 Oct 15;3(10):pgae426. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae426. eCollection 2024 Oct.
6
Cross-partisan discussions reduced political polarization between UK voters, but less so when they disagreed.跨党派讨论减少了英国选民之间的政治两极分化,但在他们存在分歧时减少的程度较小。
Commun Psychol. 2024 Jan 5;2(1):5. doi: 10.1038/s44271-023-00051-8.
7
Attraction by pairwise coherence explains the emergence of ideological sorting.两两一致性的吸引力解释了意识形态分类的出现。
PNAS Nexus. 2024 Jul 8;3(7):pgae263. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae263. eCollection 2024 Jul.
跨党派对话在减少情感极化方面的前景与陷阱:来自随机实验的证据。
Sci Adv. 2022 Jun 24;8(25):eabn5515. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn5515. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
4
Reducing opinion polarization: Effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views.减少意见极化:接触观点不同但相似的人所产生的影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Dec 28;118(52). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2112552118.
5
Examining the consumption of radical content on YouTube.考察 YouTube 上激进内容的消费情况。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 10;118(32). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2101967118.
6
Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America.情感极化、局部语境与美国舆论
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jan;5(1):28-38. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
7
Political sectarianism in America.美国的政治宗派主义。
Science. 2020 Oct 30;370(6516):533-536. doi: 10.1126/science.abe1715.
8
Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities.计算社会科学:障碍与机遇。
Science. 2020 Aug 28;369(6507):1060-1062. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz8170.
9
Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans.夸大的元感知预测了美国政治派别人群之间的群体敌意。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 30;117(26):14864-14872. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001263117. Epub 2020 Jun 11.
10
Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends.社会学习与党派偏见对气候趋势解读的影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Sep 25;115(39):9714-9719. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722664115. Epub 2018 Sep 4.