Social networks, intended to bring people together, can actually increase polarization, new research finds, because while the links in the network may be plentiful, they’re probably weak.
A research team including Cornell sociologist Michael Macy has found that while the growing number of international contacts enabled by modern communications technologies may indeed contribute to greater polarization, as shown in previous studies, the underlying mechanism does not necessarily depend on an increase in close friendships. Instead, weaker social ties appear to play a more significant role, as they are more likely to foster hierarchical structures shaped by social status.
“The most important argument in our paper is the polarizing effect of ‘status-driven dynamics’ involving weak ties,” said Macy, with “status” referring to whether an individual holds another in high or low esteem. “The importance lies in the distinction between structural and ideological polarization.”
Macy, together with Piotr Górski and Janusz Hołyst, at Warsaw University of Technology, and Giacomo Vaccario at ETH Zurich, examines the mechanisms that drive social polarization in “More Connections, Higher Polarization: The Role of Weak Ties and Status-Driven Dynamics,” published June 29 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
The team analyzed empirical data from approximately 30 social networks and employed a calibrated agent-based model to simulate individual behavior and social interactions. The study contributes to the ongoing scientific debate on the processes underlying social divisions and polarization. It responds to an earlier study proposing that an increase in social interactions could lead to greater polarization, assuming that the widespread adoption of social media and smartphones had increased the number of close friendships in Western societies. However, this assumption has been questioned by social scientists – including Macy and co-authors in this paper – who argue that the available empirical evidence does not clearly support such an increase.
“We believe polarized groups allow for the formation of divided opinions,” Macy said. “Simply put, most people do not join ideologically opposed groups that align with their opinions; rather, they acquire opinions that align with ideologically opposed groups. That is how deep structural divisions can be ideologically shallow.”
Their findings suggest a plausible pathway to polarization: as weaker ties become more prevalent, status-related mechanisms gain importance, reinforcing social divisions. Not every additional social connection has the same effect: whether a relationship represents a close friendship or a weaker acquaintance may determine which social mechanisms dominate the evolution of society.
The study demonstrates that understanding social polarization requires more than simply counting interpersonal connections. It is equally important to consider the strength and nature of those relationships, the researchers said. More social contacts do not necessarily translate into greater social cohesion; much depends on whether they are close, supportive relationships or weaker acquaintances. According to the authors, it is these weaker ties that amplify status-related dynamics and, in turn, contribute to increasing social polarization.
