How does the public discourse of digital election interference affect political polarisation? This study investigates this question using a survey experiment conducted in the UK in 2024. Respondents were exposed to fictitious news stories about digital interference during the 2019 general election, and the treatment varied information about which party benefitted from the interference. Attitudes were subsequently measured across ideological, affective, and perceived polarisation. The results indicate that news reports about this form of digital election interference do not significantly increase society's aggregated level of polarisation. However, when respondents believed the opposing party benefited, they reported heightened levels of perceived societal division and affective polarisation against the opposing ‘political wing’, suggesting that there are important ‘winner-loser’ dynamics to consider.

Since one key aim of interference campaigns often is to amplify polarisation, this indicates that way media reports on these events may inadvertently play a role in helping these campaigns achieve their objectives. This suggests that media actors carry some responsibility when it comes to their rhetoric around digital election interference. This entails balancing the the need to inform the public about important political events while at the same time avoiding exaggerated alarmism. These results underscore that while the direct impact of such campaigns on voter opinions and behaviour remains uncertain, the discourse surrounding them has the potential to shape democratic attitudes and influence societal cohesion in and by itself.