The Global Evolution of Political Polarization Research: A Bibliometric and Science-Mapping Analysis
Pages:
90-111Keywords:
political polarization, affective polarization, bibliometric analysis, political communication, social media, artificial intelligenceAbstract
Context: Political polarization has evolved from a predominantly ideological and partisan concern into a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing affective divisions, social identity, digital communication, misinformation, and governance. Despite rapid growth in this literature, its long-term intellectual and thematic development remains insufficiently mapped.
Aim: This study examines the global evolution of political polarization research from 1974 to 2026, identifying its publication patterns, influential contributors, collaboration networks, intellectual structure, thematic development, and emerging research directions.
Approach: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using 1,615 Scopus-indexed articles and reviews retrieved on 24 July 2026. Bibliometrix (Biblioshiny) and VOSviewer were employed for performance analysis and science mapping, including publication and citation analysis, country collaboration and citation networks, keyword co-occurrence, thematic mapping, multiple correspondence analysis, and thematic evolution.
Key Findings: Political polarization research expanded substantially after 2020, with an annual growth rate of 10.48%. The United States dominated publication output and total citations, while international collaboration became increasingly visible. The field evolved from ideological and partisan polarization toward affective polarization, social media, misinformation, political communication, governance, and artificial intelligence. Conceptual mapping indicates an increasingly cohesive and interdisciplinary knowledge structure.
Interpretation: The findings demonstrate that political polarization has developed into an interdisciplinary research domain connecting political, psychological, communicative, social, and technological perspectives.
Contribution: This study provides a longitudinal mapping of nearly five decades of political polarization scholarship by integrating performance analysis and science mapping, while identifying emerging priorities for comparative, interdisciplinary, and policy-relevant research.
References
Ahmi, A., Saidin, S. Z., Ratnasari, R. T., & Din, R. (2026). Good governance literature: A bibliometric mapping of themes, trends, and influential contributions. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-02-2026-0158
Ali, I., Aziz, M. F., Albishri, N., Dash, S., Temperini, V., & Usai, A. (2026). Political polarization at the workplace: Implications for knowledge management behaviors and coping mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 30(5), 1656–1677. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2025-0597
Allcott, H., Boxell, L., Conway, J., Gentzkow, M., Thaler, M., & Yang, D. (2020). Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 104254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Basu, A. (2026). Ethno-territorialisation and colonial governance in South Asia: Law, political discourse and knowledge production in the early twentieth century. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-01-2026-0017
Borger, K. A., Bošnjak, M., Füßenich, J., & Walther, E. (2026). Systematic review and evidence gap maps of affective polarization research. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 234(1–2), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000613
Bou-Hamad, I., & Yehya, N. A. (2020). Partisan selective exposure in TV consumption patterns: A polarized developing country context. Communication Research, 47(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216681896
Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Berger, W., Sack, G., & Flocken, C. (2016). Disambiguation of social polarization concepts and measures. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(2), 80–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2016.1147443
Cole, J. C., Gillis, A. J., van der Linden, S., Cohen, M. A., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2025). Social psychological perspectives on political polarization: Insights and implications for climate change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(1), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231186409
Danaeefard, H., Peters, G., Khosravi, M., Abdolhoseinzadeh, M., Kazemi, S. H., & Abdolhamid, M. (2025). Mapping and evolving the intellectual structure of politicization research: A scoping review and bibliometric analysis of current trends and future directions. Public Organization Review, 25(3), 1027–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-025-00850-z
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Erdogan, E., Jaworsky, B. N., Álvares, C., Bodroža, B., Butkevičienė, E., Cela, E., Dodeigne, J., Fahmy, S. S., Schäfer, S. H., Scott, G., Velasco Arias, G., & Zamora Medina, R. (2026). The evolving study of political polarization. Open Research Europe, 6, 93. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.23252.1
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836
Hajnal, Á. (2026). Two tales of polarization? How affective and ideological polarization influence political corruption—A panel analysis of 153 countries between 2000 and 2021. Political Studies, 74(1), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251324306
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Jain, V., Ford, J., Dutt, A., Sharma, H., Aw, E. C.-X., & Tan, G. W.-H. (2026). The intersection of advertising and politics: A bibliometric analysis of four decades of research and its imperative for theory building in the algorithmic age. International Journal of Advertising. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2026.2679380
Judijanto, L., & Haryadi, H. (2025). Trends and patterns in political communication research: A bibliometric analysis of Scopus-indexed articles. The Eastasouth Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 3(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.58812/esssh.v3i01.772
Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
Kumar, D., & Sahu, C. K. (2026). Artificial intelligence governance and social policy divergence: A comparative political economy perspective on global AI regulation. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-02-2026-0129
Larreguy, H., & Tiburcio, E. (2026). Political polarization in low- and middle-income countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 10(7), 1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02507-3
Levin, S. A., Milner, H. V., & Perrings, C. (2021). The dynamics of political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50), e2116950118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116950118
Lu, X., Gao, J., & Szymanski, B. K. (2019). The evolution of polarization in the legislative branch of government. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 16(156), 20190010. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0010
Lubej, M., Dolezal, M., & Kirbiš, A. (2026). The impact of affective polarization on political participation: A systematic review. Political Studies, 74(2), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251338496
Marino, G., & Iannelli, L. (2023). Seven years of studying the associations between political polarization and problematic information: A literature review. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1174161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1174161
Maulana, A., Karim, S., & She, L. (2025). Knowledge structure of political marketing: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Political Marketing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2025.2500744
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Moolathingal, L. F., & Namrata. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of affective polarization research trends in Asia. SN Social Sciences, 5(9), 128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-025-01166-x
Németh, R. (2023). A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: Trends and research prospects. Journal of Computational Social Science, 6(1), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2
Obreja, D. M. (2023). Mapping the political landscape on social media using bibliometrics: A longitudinal co-word analysis on Twitter and Facebook publications published between 2012 and 2021. Social Science Computer Review, 41(5), 1712–1728. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393221117749
Risca, N., Alamsyah, Abdillah, A., Hafiyah, N., Sonni, A. F., & Sisca, E. N. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of social media utilization in election campaign strategies: Trends, dynamics, and impacts on Scopus data from 2019 to 2024. Mediakita, 9(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.30762/mediakita.v9i1.2744
Sari, Q. I. P. (2025). Solidarity in democratic systems amid political conflict: Bibliometric analysis 2014–2024. Peace Review, 37(2), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2025.2533786
Sinaga, A. B., & Wulan, R. (2026). Dynamics and trends of political communication research in the information technology landscape: Bibliometric analysis with VOSviewer. DAWUH: Islamic Communication Journal, 7(2), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.62159/dawuh.v7i2.2013
Subektie, R. W., Huda, M. N., Safira, C., & Sari, A. (2025). Mapping the frontiers of digital political activism: Insights from bibliometric analysis. Studies in Media and Communication, 14(1), 402. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v14i1.8289
van Baar, J. M., & FeldmanHall, O. (2022). The polarized mind in context: Interdisciplinary approaches to the psychology of political polarization. American Psychologist, 77(3), 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000814
Wagner, M. (2024). Affective polarization in Europe. European Political Science Review, 16(3), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773923000383
Wang, C., Guo, Y., Zhou, R., Li, Y., & Wang, S. (2026). Group polarization in social media: A systematic literature review, integrative framework, and research agenda. Online Information Review, 50(4), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2025-0078
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005
Zhu, Y., & Cheng, E. W. (2025). Multidimensional diversity and research impact in political science: What 50 years of bibliometric data tell us. Perspectives on Politics, 23(2), 686–704. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592724000641
Zubair, S. (2026). Social media in spreading misinformation and political mobilization: A bibliometrics analysis 2017–2024. Journal of Media and Entrepreneurial Studies, 6(1), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.56536/jmes.v6i1.97
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The bibliographic data analyzed in this study were retrieved from the Scopus database on 24 July 2026. The analyzed data may be made available by the author upon reasonable request, subject to Scopus licensing and database-access conditions.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ammaji Rajitha (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright in their work and grant the Journal of Scholarly Research and Metrics (JSRM) the right of first publication.
Articles published in JSRM are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits use, sharing, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation of the work in any medium or format, provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated.