政治极化与心理健康：双向性的非对称证据
Political polarization and mental wellbeing: asymmetric evidence for bidirectionality
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
该研究综述政治极化与心理健康双向影响的文献，发现二者关联呈非对称特征，极化对心理健康的影响证据更充分，反向路径证据不足，提出未来研究需完善相关设计以填补缺口。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
越来越多证据表明，政治极化与心理健康及幸福感存在相互影响，但极化如何塑造心理健康、心理健康又如何影响极化这两个方向的研究在不同学科间相互孤立。本文综述两类文献以评估双向效应证据的强度与一致性，发现文献在构念、测量及分析层面差异极大，且两条路径的证据呈非对称特征：极化到心理健康的关联更直接，依托成熟理论框架与社会关系机制；而反向路径的直接性显著更低，相关研究常考察认知、社会情感因素或与极化相邻的政治结果，而非极化本身。本文明确指出文献存在的明显缺口，强调未来研究需具备概念清晰度、统一框架、经验证的测量工具，以及在同一实证与理论框架下同时考察两条路径的多层面设计。
英文摘要
A growing body of evidence suggests that political polarization and mental health and wellbeing influence each other. Yet the two directions, how polarization shapes mental wellbeing and how mental wellbeing shapes polarization, remain siloed across disciplines. We review both literatures to evaluate the strength and alignment of evidence for bidirectional effects. We find that the literature varies widely in constructs, measures, and levels of analysis, and that the evidence for the two pathways is asymmetric: links from polarization to mental wellbeing are more direct, grounded in well-developed theoretical frameworks and social-relational mechanisms. In contrast, the reverse pathway is substantially less direct, with studies often examining cognitive and socio-emotional factors, or political outcomes adjacent to polarization rather than polarization itself. We identify clear gaps in the literature highlighting the need for future studies with conceptual clarity, unified frameworks, validated measures, and multilevel designs examining both pathways within the same empirical and theoretical setting.
发表机构
- Aalto University（阿尔托大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
