Opinions within inner circles influence perception of social division

[Vienna, July 8, 2025] – Are opinions on controversial political issues as divided as many people perceive them to be? Researchers from the Complexity Science Hub (CSH), the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) in Bremen and the University of California Merced have addressed this question in a study recently published in PNAS Nexus.

There is a widespread perception that society is becoming increasingly divided into opposing factions, giving the impression that ideological divides are deepening, for example on important issues such as public health, immigration, or climate change. Against this backdrop, past scientific studies have attempted to quantify the degree to which opinions actually diverge – often with contradictory results. In their new study, Peter Steiglechner (CSH, formerly ZMT), Agostino Merico (ZMT) and Paul E. Smaldino (University of California Merced) explored how robust and realistic the widespread perception of polarization is.

“When we think about contested political issues, we often have the impression that people within our inner social circles – family, friends, or political in-groups – hold relatively aligned and often even converging opinions. However, we sometimes also perceive that society overall is polarizing. This uncomfortable perception may actually not always be entirely true,” says first author Peter Steiglechner. 

New Method for Disentangling Perceived From Actual Polarization 

While past empirical works on societal polarization focused on objective measures of opinion divergence, in this new study, the authors introduce a way to disentangle actual and subjectively perceived polarization in empirical opinion data.

To explain the mathematics underpinning the method in an intuitive way, the authors introduce the metaphor of a political “lens” – a hypothetical device, or point of view, through which individuals evaluate a set of opinions. This subjective “lens” reflects the spread of opinions within a person’s inner circle. 

“The broader the spread of these opinions on a given topic, the ’thicker’ the lens and the less divergent the broader society is perceived with respect to that topic,” explains Steiglechner. “The narrower the spread in one’s inner circle, i.e., the ‘thinner’ the lens, the more polarized the broader society is perceived.” 

Consensus Within One's Circle Can Exaggerate Perceptions of Polarization 

Subjective, political lenses change over time and this dynamic crucially influences how a person perceives polarization. The results show that perceived polarization can even depend just as much on the dynamics of disagreement within identity groups (and thus on the lens) as on the actual divergence of opinion in the broader society.

“In other words, the more my inner circle agrees on matters such as climate change, the more I might feel a sense of polarization at a broader societal scale on this topic, and vice versa.”, says Agostino Merico, co-author of the study. As this dynamic varies between political groups, the polarization these groups perceive can also deviate greatly.  “Ultimately, people don't even have to agree so much on how divided they are or on which issues they do or do not diverge,” concludes Peter Steiglechner.

Ideological Polarization – More Than a Perceived Experience 

The study offers a new perspective on assessing and measuring the extent of polarization, say the authors. “In times when increased polarization goes hand in hand with disruptive social or political trends such as the decline in social cohesion or the rise of authoritarianism, it is important to understand the social and psychological mechanisms underlying these phenomena”, emphasizes Paul Smaldino, the other co-author of the study.

Peter Steiglechner concludes: “Societal polarization – or the perception of it – influences policymaking on challenges such as climate change, food crises or environmental protection and potentially impairs the search for consensus and the implementation of solutions in a democratic way. Our study shows that a change in perception is critical for reducing polarization.”

About the Study 
The study "How opinion variation among in-groups can skew perceptions of ideological polarization" by Peter Steiglechner, Paul E. Smaldino, and Agostino Merico was recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Nexus (doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf184). It was funded by the German Research Foundation as part of the priority programme "Sea Level and Society”. 

About CSH

The Complexity Science Hub (CSH) is Europe’s research center for the study of complex systems. We derive meaning from data from a range of disciplines – economics, medicine, ecology, and the social sciences – as a basis for actionable solutions for a better world. CSH members are Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT), BOKU University, Central European University (CEU), Graz University of Technology, Interdisciplinary Transformation University Austria (IT:U), Medical University of Vienna, TU Wien, University of Continuing Education Krems, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna University of Economics and Business, and Austrian Economic Chambers (WKO).

This text was prepared by ZMT's media team.