In two minds: ambivalence and the pathways to polarisation in the digital public sphere

This article advances a theory of how attitudinal ambivalence links cross-cutting information flows to polarisation. Democratic ideals presuppose exposure to conflicting information in the public sphere supports deliberative opinion formation. Yet today’s digital communication environment increasingly produces attitude extremity rather than moderation. I position ambivalence – the holding of simultaneous positive and negative evaluations – as a pivotal psychological moderator of these effects. While mixed evaluations about a single attitude object can motivate careful reasoning, subjective ambivalence can generate discomfort that is resolved through attitude amplification, where one side of a conflict is exaggerated to reach a rigid, univalent position. I propose three features of contemporary public spheres that increase the likelihood of amplification among ambivalent individuals: information overload, decision stress, and social stigma. I derive testable propositions for future empirical research that would clarify when cross-cutting exposure deepens divides and how institutional design might steer ambivalence toward constructive deliberation.