Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40364586›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of social psychology2025

A primer on politicization, polarization, radicalization, and activation and their implications for democracy in times of rapid technological change.

Laura G E Smith, Emma F Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of social psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura G E SmithUniversity of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8112-5096
Emma F ThomasFlinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8664-9748

Funding

Australian Research Council FT240100558Economic and Social Research Council ES/Z000386/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Governments around the world fear a loss of social cohesion and a risk of harm to individuals and democratic processes that stem from politicization, polarization and radicalization. We argue that these processes of social influence provide the motivation for-but are not sufficient for-mobilization (the behaviour of engaging in collective action). To be able to collectively act, people require the capability and resources to do so, which can be developed during an activation process. We clarify the common and distinct aspects of each process so the common drivers, but unique effects, can be conceptualized and operationalized by policymakers, practitioners and researchers who wish to understand democratic resilience.

Indexed as

DemocracyPoliticsHumansPoliticizationcollective actionmobilizationpolarizationpoliticizationprotestradicalizationsocial influence

Identifiers

PMID40364586
PMCPMC12076042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.