Order, Loyalty, and Polarization in a Public Debate: Evidence from a Russian-Language Online Experiment

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2025.9.3.344

Abstract

We examine how presentation order structures polarization in a public debate. A large online debate on a proposed “Ministry of Happiness” is analyzed. The data for analysis was obtained from a two-stage experiment in which 307 (Stage 1) and then 200 (Stage 2) respondents from different age groups evaluated 50 basic and 10 additional statements about the creation of a “Ministry of Happiness.” The contribution is a sequence-aware, audience-referenced reading of the same script. We trace how alignment with loyal or disloyal framing accumulates over the observed order, recover age-ordered cohorts directly from response patterns, rank the most divisive statements, and quantify sign-free responsiveness by age and gender. In terms of age categories, youth initially respond to statements about benefits and feasibility, though they quickly adjust after scrutiny or signs of distrust, ultimately receiving lower ratings when critical moments arise. Mid-life splits into a trust-forward profile and an oversight-oriented profile. The oldest cohort holds early, then declines in long negative runs. Polarization concentrates on a compact set of identity, control, and feasibility statements, with a sharp pivot at a mid-sequence trust cue. In the older module, women react more decisively than men at the same ages. The approach is descriptive and transparent, identifies where and for whom polarization accumulates, and is portable to other debates.

Author Biographies

Dimitri Volchenkov, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX

Dimitri Volchenkov, PhD, is Professor of Mathematics & Statistics at Texas Tech University; he holds habilitations in Theoretical & Mathematical Physics from Bielefeld (2010) and Aix-Marseille (2007), French & German qualifications as University Professor (2008 & 2010), and a PhD from Saint-Petersburg State University (1996). His 29-year career spans appointments and fellowships in the USA, Germany, France, and China (CITEC Bielefeld; Sichuan University 1000 Talents; Texas A&M; Alexander von Humboldt, NATO, Volkswagen). Research interests: stochastic processes and statistical mechanics; spectral graph theory, random walks, and network science; information geometry and uncertainty quantification; AI/ML for complex systems, infrastructure, and social data.

Daniel Korley, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX

Daniel Korley is a Master Student at Texas Tech University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lubbock, USA

Alexander N. Lebedev, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

Alexander N. Lebedev, PhD, Dr. Sci. (Psychology), is a Chief Researcher at the Institute of Psychology. Alexander Lebedev graduated from the Faculty of Psychology of Lomonosov Moscow State University; postgraduate studies at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; postdoc at the Graduate School of Social Sciences, European Laboratory of Experimental Social Psychology at the House of Human Sciences (Paris, France). Research interests: personality psychology, experimental psychology, social psychology, psychology of marketing and advertising, political psychology

References


  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Allyn & Bacon.

  • Lloyd, S. P. (1982). Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

  • McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

  • Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green.

  • Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

  • Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), Article e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782

  • van der Maaten, L., & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 2579–2605.

  • Volchenkov, D., & Lebedev, A. N. (2025). Diskursivnaia poliarizatsiia i vozrastnogendernye tsennosti: kombinirovannyi analiz reaktsii na initsiativu “Ministerstvo schast’ia” [Discursive polarization and age–gender value structures: A combined analysis of reactions to the “Ministry of Happiness” initiative]. Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 5(2), 3–15.

Published
2025-10-10
How to Cite
Volchenkov, D., Korley, D., & Lebedev, A. (2025). Order, Loyalty, and Polarization in a Public Debate: Evidence from a Russian-Language Online Experiment. Changing Societies & Personalities, 9(3), 594-613. doi:10.15826/csp.2025.9.3.344
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol. 9, No. 3 (2025)
Section
Articles