I checked 7 public opinion journals on Monday, February 16, 2026 using the Crossref API. For the period February 09 to February 15, I found 3 new paper(s) in 3 journal(s).

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

External Cues and Policy Preferences: Rethinking the Drivers of Policy Positions
Francisca Castro, Jennifer Oser, Fernando Feitosa, Nir Grinberg
Full text
At a time when the influence of external cues on opinion formation is gaining attention due to their relevance for preference formation, this research note investigates how external cues from political elites and close friends shape individual policy preferences. Building on prior studies by Barber and Pope (2019, 2024) regarding Donald Trump's impact on people's policy preferences during his 2017–2021 presidency, we examine whether this influence persists soon after Trump's first presidential tenure concludes in late 2021 through a survey experiment. We also assess the influence of a second external cue that has gained attention due to the growing role of social media in political processes: a close friend, who might also serve as a relevant figure for policy position formation. We find that Trump's liberal cues shift Republican preferences in a liberal direction, while close friend cues show diverse patterns, including some backlash effects where individuals adopt positions opposite to conservative friend advocacy. These effects vary with individuals' party identification, political knowledge, and social conformity levels. Individual characteristics moderate political elite influence, while peer influence operates through reactance mechanisms rather than conformity, revealing that social networks shape opinions through more complex pathways than commonly theorized.

Public Opinion Quarterly

Continuity and Change in Trust in Scientists in the United States: Demographic Stability and Partisan Polarization
Jonathan Schulman, James N Druckman, Alauna Safarpour, Matthew A Baum, Katherine Ognyanova, Kristin Lunz Trujillo, Alexi Quintana Mathé, Hong Qu, Ata Aydin Uslu, Roy H Perlis, David M J Lazer
Full text
Americans’ trust in scientists has been stable and high, relative to other political and social institutions, for the last half century (Krause, Brossard, and Scheufele 2019). Yet, underlying this stability lies a dramatic change such that a partisan gap has emerged, with Democrats exhibiting substantially more trust than Republicans. Fifty years ago, Republicans in fact exhibited more relative trust in scientists. This article explains this continuity and change. First, we demonstrate that the demographic correlates of trust in scientists have been remarkably stable for more than a half century: women, Black, rural, religious, non-college educated, and lower/working-class individuals exhibit less trust than their counterparts. Second, we show that the partisan relationship with trust in scientists has flipped (over that same time period) as low-trusting demographic strata shifted partisan allegiances. This is particularly the case when it comes to education and religiosity. Concomitant with the emergent partisan gap is a massive perceptual gap among Democrats, who perceive a partisan divide more than double its actual size. Democrats vastly underestimate Republicans’ trust in scientists. The enduring demographic basis of trust in scientists provides an opportunity to bridge partisan divides by addressing demographic inequities in the practice and application of science.

Social Science Computer Review

Elite Polarisation on Twitter/X: Structural and Behavioural Dynamics in Public Discourse
Amirhosein Bodaghi
Full text
This study examines how elite figures shape polarisation on Twitter/X through the interplay of content, structure, and engagement strategy. Drawing on data from nine globally influential users (2010–2021), the research integrates natural language processing, network analysis, and causal modelling to test five hypotheses grounded in social identity, agenda-setting, and two-step flow theories. Entity co-occurrence networks reveal that polarised discourse forms denser, more clustered networks than non-polarised content, indicating tighter semantic cohesion around socially and politically charged entities. Thematic and sentiment analyses show that posts addressing non-core topics – particularly those concerning social justice, environmental sustainability, philanthropy, and global welfare – are nearly five times more likely to be polarised than core professional themes. Negative emotional tone further amplifies this effect, while higher tweet-to-retweet ratios reduce polarisation, underscoring the moderating role of original content production. A user-level mediation analysis tested whether topical diversity transmits the effect of follower scale on polarisation but found no significant indirect pathway, suggesting that larger audiences do not necessarily foster communicative moderation. The findings advance understanding of elite discourse by linking structural and thematic polarisation to behavioural mechanisms of engagement. Theoretically, the study bridges social identity, agenda-setting, and two-step flow frameworks to explain how elites balance audience alignment and expressive risk. Practically, it highlights how emphasising original content, inclusive framing, and professional identity consistency can mitigate divisive online dynamics and foster more cohesive digital publics. To support transparency and reproducibility, the dataset and analytical code are made publicly available.