A new study published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has demonstrated an alarming relationship. As social circles grow, political polarization grows. In their new study, researchers analyzed survey responses from more than 57,000 people spanning Europe and the United States. They found that the average number of close friendships almost doubled from two to four over the years from 2000 to 2024. That transformation happened just as average polarized political attitudes skyrocketed between 1999 and 2017. The researchers conclude that as people get more connected, they fall into ideological bubbles against their better judgment, making civil discourse even harder in an age of democracy.
The study, led by researchers Markus Hofer, Jan Korbel, and Stefan Thurner, highlights key trends in social connections and their influence on political beliefs. Interestingly, the share of people identifying exclusively with liberal or conservative ideologies grew sharply over the same time frame. The study is a testament to this peril of hyper-connectivity in our modern age.
Rise in Political Polarization
The study finds that political attitudes have changed dramatically between 1999 and 2017. In 1999, only 14% of survey respondents reliably labeled themselves as liberal, although this number jumped to 31% in 2017. At the same time, conservative attitudes jumped from 6% to 16%. These figures show the extent to which we have moved over time toward increasingly unipolar partisan perspectives.
This change is especially concerning when compared next to the timing of social media explosion. Polarization skyrocketed in those two years, particularly from 2008-2010. This increase perfectly matched the explosion of smartphone usage, and the meteoric evolution of social media platforms. Almost at the same rate during that time frame, researchers noted a corresponding growth in the number of close friendships people said they had.
“The big question that not only we, but many countries are currently grappling with, is why polarization has increased so dramatically in recent years,” – Stefan Thurner.
To better understand the dynamic between social interactions and political polarization, the researchers used an agent-based model based on real-world data. For the last 50 years, sociological research has found that the average person can only maintain about two close friendships. Info from these pals can go a long way toward changing their minds on key questions. That dynamic began to shift approximately in 2008, with the average number of confidants increasing to four or five close friends.
The Role of Social Connectivity
Along with this increase in friendships across ideological lines comes the powerful effect of how increased contact changes one’s relationship to opposing viewpoints. As Americans grow their networks to include a wider range of backgrounds, they come into contact with other, sometimes opposing, perspectives. This new exposure can create misinterpretation and discontent, and eventually increase the degree of societal polarization.
The researchers pointed out a critical issue. They argued that though more connectivity seems like a good idea, it tends to drive people further into their respective ideological bubbles, sidestepping productive discourse.
“Around 2008, there was a sharp increase from an average of two close friends to four or five.” – Jan Korbel.
The implications of these findings are profound. For Thurner, early investment in grappling with opposing views is one way to build tolerance into society’s fabric.
This warning should serve as a call to action to safeguard our democratic processes. Thurner stresses that poor communication across these critical groups erodes the foundations of democracy itself. The sharing economy study further depicts how greater social demonstration can be a co-producing factor for society to feel more divided.
“When network density increases with more connections, polarization within the collective inevitably rises sharply.” – Markus Hofer.
This study provides an important and timely contribution by connecting these two seemingly unrelated, but intertwined phenomena. It beautifully ties together the growth of social networks with the rise of political hatred.
Implications for Democracy and Society
This new mathematical model opens up a more comprehensive understanding of connectivity. It explains how it can approach tipping points, leading to drastic changes in polarization akin to phase transition in physical systems.
“When people are more connected with each other, they encounter different opinions more frequently. This inevitably leads to more conflict and thus greater societal polarization,” – Jan Korbel.
This warning underscores a critical concern for democratic processes, as Thurner notes that when groups fail to communicate effectively with one another, it undermines democratic principles. The study illustrates how increased social connectivity can inadvertently contribute to societal fragmentation.
The decisive contribution of this research lies in its ability to reconcile two seemingly disparate phenomena—growing social circles and rising political polarization.
“The decisive contribution of this study is that it reconciled both phenomena using a mathematical social model,” – Stefan Thurner.
This mathematical model allows for a deeper understanding of how connectivity can reach critical thresholds, leading to sudden shifts in polarization akin to phase transitions seen in physics.