Contemporary societies are often described as increasingly polarised, with people splitting into opposing camps. Social media can further reinforce the impression of an “us versus them” divide. Researchers set out to determine whether this picture matched how people actually defined their own group affiliations.

The study, “Polarized or Fragmented? How Social Identities Relate to Political Cleavages and Media Use Across European Countries”, published in the journal Media Psychology, involved 5,333 participants from Poland, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Researchers asked respondents how strongly they identified with groups linked to contemporary social and political conflicts. These included people for whom national identity or religion was very important, those who were critical of feminism and political correctness, as well as people engaged in fighting economic and gender inequality, climate change or antisemitism, and those advocating for Palestinian rights.

Social identity refers to an individual’s perceived sense of belonging to a specific group. The researchers wanted to determine whether the social identities in question were polarised or fragmented. They defined fragmentation as the presence of more diverse groups that did not necessarily fall on opposite sides of an ideological divide.

The analysis identified six distinct ways in which these identities combined. The authors say the identities studied were fragmented rather than polarised, with no two clearly opposing blocs emerging.

The largest group, accounting for 21.9% of respondents, consisted of “egalitarians”. They strongly identified with people involved in issues of economic and gender equality, climate protection, the fight against antisemitism and Palestinian rights.

“Conservatives” made up 18.6% of the sample. For them, religion and national identity were particularly important. A similar proportion, 17.8%, were “moderates”, who identified with the nation and with those working to reduce inequality but did not show equally strong identification with the other issues analysed.

The researchers also identified “anti-egalitarians” (12.8%), who identified relatively strongly with critics of feminism, political correctness and “official truths” from established authorities, and “egalitarians-lite” (12.4%), whose profile resembled that of the egalitarians but with weaker identification.

Another 16.5% of respondents showed “weak identification” with the identities under study. This group appeared in all five countries.

According to the study authors, the results suggest that many people do not have particularly strong political identities. This does not mean they lack opinions or an interest in public affairs. Rather, the study shows that the affiliations analysed are not a particularly significant part of how they answer the question, “Who am I?”

Profiles of “egalitarians” and “egalitarians-lite” were identified in all five countries. However, no “anti-egalitarians” were identified in Sweden, while no “moderates” were found in the UK.

The researchers also examined how these identities were linked to patterns of social media use.

They found that it was not only whether people used social media that mattered, but also how they used it. People who used these platforms actively, for instance by posting content, commenting or interacting with others, developed stronger identification with their primary social group over time. The same correlation was not observed among those who merely browsed content without interacting.

The relationship also worked in the opposite direction: stronger identification with a significant social group was linked to increased social media activity later on. The authors suggest that the two phenomena may therefore reinforce each other.

The researchers also found links between identities and the use of alternative media. They say, however, that selective choice may be involved, with people tending to gravitate towards sources that align with their existing views and identities.

“The results do not mean that polarization is disappearing”, the study authors conclude. Society may not be split into two permanent camps, yet it can still engage in fierce disputes over specific issues. Certain groups might find themselves on the same side regarding one issue, while standing on opposite sides regarding another. Consequently, social divisions may resemble a shifting network of various affiliations rather than a single, fixed boundary splitting society in two, they comment.

The researchers also say their findings present a somewhat different picture from some earlier studies, which pointed to a strong link between social identities and major political divisions. The research methodology may play a role: the authors of this study analysed broad samples of the general public, whereas some previous studies focused on supporters of specific political parties.

This fragmentation of identity may also have implications for political representation. If an individual holds multiple affiliations and views that do not align with a single side of the partisan divide, they may struggle to find a party that truly represents them. The researchers point out that politicians should recognise the greater diversity of social identities and the need to ensure citizens feel represented.

The authors of the study are affiliated with the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, the Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) in Portugal, and Jagiellonian University in Kraków. (PAP)

wl/ zan/

tr. RL