Ideological Alignment, Cognitive Biases, and Media Exposure in Political Outgroups and Polarization: A Systematic Review

Political communication research increasingly theorizes ideological alignment, cognitive biases, and media exposure as a sequential causal chain shaping attitudes toward political outgroups and polarization, yet whether the field empirically tests this three-variable model or only invokes it rhetorically has not been systematically examined. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesizes empirical evidence published between January 2000 and 2026 across four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed) using an Antecedent–Mechanism–Outcome (AMO) framework and PRISMA 2020 reporting standards, integrating quantitative gap-mapping with qualitative thematic synthesis of how each construct in the chain is conceptualized. A Full-Chain AMO Inclusion Rule retained 158 studies for primary synthesis from 784 records identified; 412 partial-pathway studies were retained as a contextual pool for gap-mapping. Of 158 included studies, 65 (41.1%) satisfied the rule through cognitive-bias mechanisms alone without measuring media exposure; 50 (31.6%) measured media exposure only by self-report; 36 (22.8%) manipulated it experimentally; and 8 (5.1%) used behavioral or trace-data measurement. Only 22.8% formally tested mediation, and 68.4% sampled exclusively from the United States, raising questions about cross-national generalizability. Thematic synthesis revealed that apparent convergence on shared construct labels masks substantive disagreement about what each construct is and where it sits in the information-processing stream. The field’s integrated theoretical model is not the empirical model it predominantly tests. Closing this gap — through behavioral media-exposure measurement, formal mediation estimation, longitudinal designs, and cross-national replication including in hybrid-media contexts such as the Philippines — is the field’s most actionable priority.

affective polarization, motivated reasoning, meta-perception, mixed-methods synthesis, Philippine politics

1. Agonosa MJM (2025). Exploring fear of friendship over (FOFO) in social media political participation during the 2022 Philippine presidential elections. Asian J Commun 35(6):558–581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ahler DJ (2014). Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. J Polit 76(3):607–620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ahler DJ, Sood G (2018). The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J Polit 80(3):964–981 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Amira K, Wright JC, Goya-Tocchetto D (2019). In-group love versus out-group hate: which is more important to partisans and when? Polit Behav 43(2):473–494 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Amsalem E, Merkley E, Loewen PJ (2022). Does talking to the other side reduce inter-party hostility? Evidence from three studies. Polit Commun 39(1):61–78 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Arceneaux K, Vander Wielen R (2025). An open mind or a big heart: possible routes to reducing in-group bias. Polit Commun 42(1):1–22 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Arugay AA, Slater JKA (2023). Mobilized and polarized: social media and disinformation narratives in the 2022 Philippine elections. Pac Aff 96(3):549–571 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bail CA, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H, Hunzaker MBF, Lee J, Mann M, Merhout F, Volfovsky A (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(37):9216–9221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Baldassarri D, Park B (2019). Was there a culture war? Partisan polarization and secular trends in U.S. public opinion. J Polit 82(3):809–827 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Balietti S, Getoor L, Goldstein DG, Watts DJ (2021). Reducing opinion polarization: effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118(52):e2112552118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112552118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Banda KK, Cluverius J (2018). Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Elect Stud 56:90–101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bantel I (2023). Camps, not just parties: the dynamic foundations of affective polarization in multi-party systems. Elect Stud 83:102614 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Brienza JP, Kung FYH, Chao MM (2021). Wise reasoning, intergroup positivity, and attitude polarization across contexts. Nat Commun 12(1):3313 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bruneau E, Kteily N (2017). The enemy as animal: symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare. PLOS ONE 12(7):e0181422 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A et al (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cassese EC (2019). Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Polit Behav 43(1):29–50 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Cely T (2025). One more constrained than the other: asymmetrical ideological alignment and its implications for polarization. Eur J Polit Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12742 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Comellas JM, Torcal M (2023). Ideological identity, issue-based ideology and bipolar affective polarization in multiparty systems. Elect Stud 83:102615 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Costello K, Hodson G (2012). Explaining dehumanization among children: the interspecies model of prejudice. Br J Soc Psychol 53(1):175–197 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Derreumaux Y, Bergh R, Hughes BL (2022). Partisan-motivated sampling: re-examining politically motivated reasoning across the information processing stream. J Pers Soc Psychol 123(2):316–336 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Druckman JN, Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Levendusky M, Ryan JB (2021a). (Mis-)estimating affective polarization. J Polit 84(2):1106–1117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Druckman JN, Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Levendusky M, Ryan JB (2021b). Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nat Hum Behav 5(1):28–38 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Enders AM, Armaly MT (2018). The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit Behav 41(3):815–839 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Feliciano MPJ (2024). Bridging the moral chasm: understanding the increasing polarization in the Philippines. In: Democratic Erosion. Democratic Erosion Consortium. https://democratic-erosion.org/2024/bridging-the-moral-chasm/. Accessed 1 June 2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Garrett KN, Bankert A (2018). The moral roots of partisan division: how moral conviction heightens affective polarization. Br J Polit Sci 50(2):621–640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Garrett RK (2019). Social media’s contribution to political misperceptions in U.S. presidential elections. PLOS ONE 14(3):e0213500 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Garrett RK, Weeks BE, Neo RL (2014). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: how online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. J Comput Mediat Commun 21(5):331–348 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Górska P, Bulska D, Górski M (2025). The more, the merrier: the effect of social network heterogeneity on attitudes toward political opponents. Soc Incl 13(1) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Guess AM (2015). Measure for measure: an experimental test of online political media exposure. Polit Anal 23(1):59–75 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Gvirsman SD (2014). It is not that we do not know, it is that we do not care: explaining why selective exposure polarizes attitudes. Mass Commun Soc 17(1):74–97 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Han J, Federico CM (2017). Conflict-framed news, self-categorization, and partisan polarization. Mass Commun Soc 20(4):455–480 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Harel TO, Nir N, Vandermeulen D, Maoz I, Halperin E (2025). A threat to cohesion: intragroup affective polarization in the context of intractable intergroup conflict. J Confl Resolut 69(4):689–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027241247033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Harteveld E (2021). Ticking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization. Elect Stud 72:102337 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Hodson G, Costello K (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychol Sci 18(8):691–698 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Holliday DE, Lelkes Y, Westwood SJ (2025). Why depolarization is hard: evaluating attempts to decrease partisan animosity in America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 122(39):e2508827122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2508827122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S et al (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. Canadian Intellectual Property Office [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Huddy L, Yair O (2020). Reducing affective polarization: warm group relations or policy compromise? Polit Psychol 42(2):291–309 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Human Rights Watch (2025). World report 2025: Philippines. In: World Report 2025. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/philippines. Accessed 1 June 2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, Westwood SJ (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu Rev Polit Sci 22:129–146 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Iyengar S, Sood G, Lelkes Y (2012). Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin Q 76(3):405–431 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Iyengar S, Westwood SJ (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am J Polit Sci 59(3):690–707 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Jenke L (2024). Affective polarization and misinformation belief. Polit Behav 46(2):825–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Kahan DM (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1. In: Scott RA, Kosslyn SM (eds) Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. Wiley, pp 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kane JV, Mason L, Wronski J (2021). Who’s at the party? Group sentiments, knowledge, and partisan identity. J Polit 83(4):1783–1799 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Ryan JB (2018). Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opin Q 82(2):379–390 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Koetke J, Conrique BG, Schumann K (2023). Bridging the divide: the effect of individuating information on attitudes toward political outgroup members. J Soc Polit Psychol 11(2):562–581. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9836 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Krosch AR, Berntsen L, Amodio DM, Jost JT, Van Bavel JJ (2013). On the ideology of hypodescent: political conservatism predicts categorization of racially ambiguous faces as Black. J Exp Soc Psychol 49(6):1196–1203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Kubin E, Gray KJ, von Sikorski C (2023). Reducing political dehumanization by pairing facts with personal experiences. Polit Psychol 44(5):1119–1140 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Landry AP, Schooler JW, Willer R, Seli P (2023). Reducing explicit blatant dehumanization by correcting exaggerated meta-perceptions. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 14(4):407–418 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Lee J (2025). Mediating roles of cognitive bias and media exposure: a parallel mediation test. Polit Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2025.2449318 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Levendusky M (2013). How partisan media polarize America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Marchal N (2022). “Be nice or leave me alone”: an intergroup perspective on affective polarization in online political discussions. Commun Res 49(3):376–398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Mason L (2018). Uncivil agreement: how politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Moore-Berg SL, Ankori-Karlinsky L-O, Hameiri B, Bruneau E (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117(26):14864–14872 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ong JC, Cabañes JVA (2018). Architects of networked disinformation: behind the scenes of troll accounts and fake news production in the Philippines. The Newton Tech4Dev Network [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Overgaard CSB (2024). Perceiving affective polarization in the United States: how social media shape meta-perceptions and affective polarization. Soc Media Soc 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241232662 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Pariser E (2011). The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press, New York [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Park B (2024). Cross-cutting exposure, motivated reasoning, and perceived polarization. Polit Commun 41(5):729–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2310549 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Piccardi T, Saveski M, Jia C, Hancock JT, Tsai JL, Bernstein MS (2024). Social media algorithms can curb misinformation, but do users want them to? Science 386(6724):991–996 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Pluye P, Hong QN (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annu Rev Public Health 35:29–45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Popan JR, Coursey L, Acosta J, Kenworthy J (2019). Testing the effects of incivility during internet political discussion on perceptions of rational argument and evaluations of a political outgroup. Comput Hum Behav 96:81–90 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S et al (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10(1):39 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J (2007). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res Sch 13(1):29 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Sarao Z (2025). INC’s anti-corruption rally draws over 300,000 in Manila. Philippine Daily Inquirer. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Shi R, Messaris P, Cappella JN (2022). Partisan ambivalence in the processing of news about ingroup and outgroup politicians’ scandals. Mass Commun Soc 25(2):230–253 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Sinpeng A, Tapsell R, Cabañes JVA, Ong JC (2024). Posting for profit: social media influencers in Philippine politics. FULCRUM (ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Stroud NJ (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. J Commun 60(3):556–576 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Stroud NJ (2017). Selective exposure theories. In: Kenski K, Jamieson KH (eds) The Oxford handbook of political communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 531–548 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Sunstein CR (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press, Princeton [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Taber CS, Lodge M (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 50(3):755–769 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Thomas J, Harden A (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. van Prooijen J-W, Krouwel APM, Boiten M, Eendebak L (2015). Fear among the extremes: how political ideology predicts negative emotions and outgroup derogation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 41(4):485–497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Westwood SJ, Iyengar S, Walgrave S, Leonisio R, Miller L, Strijbis O (2017). The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur J Polit Res 57(2):333–354 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Wojcieszak M, Garrett RK (2018). Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: how priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Hum Commun Res 44(3):247–273 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Wojcieszak M, Warner BR (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Polit Commun 37(6):789–811 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Public Sector Employees’ Perceptions of Retirement Benefits in Kabwe District, Zambia
• A Useful Inequality or a Reproduced Privilege? A Political Science Reappraisal of Social Stratification in American Functionalism in Light of the Moroccan Case