How People Make Meaning in a Fragmented Democracy: Implications for Incorporating Public Opinion into Public Policy

Scientists and policymakers often rely on polls to measure the opinions of the American public. They collect brief responses from large samples of Americans and use quantitative methods to aggregate those responses in ways that allow them to construct measures of what the “average American” thinks. Policymakers then (sometimes) use those averages to inform public policy. In this article, I raise questions about the utility of that approach for policymaking, given what social and behavioral scientists have learned about the fragmentation of (American) democracy and its implications for heterogeneity in people's experiences. I review research on social fragmentation, its implications for how people who are differentially positioned in society perceive and make meaning of the world around them, and the implications for the policies they support. After reviewing those processes, I end by offering alternative approaches for incorporating public opinion into the policymaking process.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2025-12-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322251405276
Primary Topic
Social Media and Politics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How People Make Meaning in a Fragmented Democracy: Implications for Incorporating Public Opinion into Public Policy

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Social Media and Politics
article

How People Make Meaning in a Fragmented Democracy: Implications for Incorporating Public Opinion into Public Policy

article en

Abstract

Scientists and policymakers often rely on polls to measure the opinions of the American public. They collect brief responses from large samples of Americans and use quantitative methods to aggregate those responses in ways that allow them to construct measures of what the “average American” thinks. Policymakers then (sometimes) use those averages to inform public policy. In this article, I raise questions about the utility of that approach for policymaking, given what social and behavioral scientists have learned about the fragmentation of (American) democracy and its implications for heterogeneity in people's experiences. I review research on social fragmentation, its implications for how people who are differentially positioned in society perceive and make meaning of the world around them, and the implications for the policies they support. After reviewing those processes, I end by offering alternative approaches for incorporating public opinion into the policymaking process.

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain SciencesVol. 13(1)
Cornell University (US), Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Social Media and Politics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.