1932

Abstract

While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. We trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord and conclude with suggestions for future work.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
2019-05-11
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramowitz AI, Saunders K 2008. Is polarization a myth?. J. Politics 70:2542–55
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowitz AI, Webster S 2016. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Stud 41:12–22
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahler DJ 2014. Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. J. Politics 76:3607–20
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahler DJ, Sood G 2018. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Politics 80:3964–81
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arceneaux K, Johnson M 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  6. Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348:62391130–32
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartels LM 2002. Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behav 24:2117–50
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berinsky A 2018. Telling the truth about believing the lies? Evidence for the limited prevalence of expressive survey responding. J. Politics 80:1211–24
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berry J, Sobieraj S 2014. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  10. Billig M, Tajfel H 1973. Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 3:127–52
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bishop B 2009. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  12. Bougher LD 2017. The correlates of discord: identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Political Behav 39:3731–62
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Boxell L, Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM 2017. Greater internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. PNAS 114:4010612–17
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boysen GA, Vogel DL, Madon S 2006. A public versus private administration of the Implicit Association Test. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36:6845–56
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brewer MB 1991. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17:5475–82
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brewer MB 1999. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love and outgroup hate?. J. Soc. Issues 55:3429–44
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bullock JG, Gerber AS, Hill SJ, Huber GA 2015. Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Q. J. Political Sci. 10:4519–78
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Carlin RE, Love GJ 2013. The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: an experimental approach. Political Behav 35:143–63
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Carlin RE, Love GJ 2018. Political competition, partisanship, and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. Br. J. Political Sci. 48:1115–39
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen MK, Rohla R 2018. The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science 360:63921020–24 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/1020
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chopik WJ, Motyl M 2016. Ideological fit enhances interpersonal orientations. Soc. Psychol. Personality Sci. 7:8759–68
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Druckman JN, Levendusky MS, McLain A 2018. No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:199–112
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fiorina M, Abrams S, Pope J 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America New York: Pearson-Longman
  24. Fiorina M, Abrams S, Pope J 2008. Polarization in the American public: misconceptions and misreadings. J. Politics 70:2556–60
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaertner S, Dovidio J, Anastasio P, Bachman B, Rust M 1993. The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4:11–26
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Garrett RK, Gvirsman SD, Johnson BK, Tsfati Y, Neo R, Dal A 2014. Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Hum. Commun. Res. 40:3309–32
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM 2011. Ideological segregation online and offline. Q. J. Econ. 126:41799–839
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gerber AS, Huber GA 2009. Partisanship and economic behavior: Do partisan differences in economic forecasts predict real economic behavior?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103:3407–26
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gerber AS, Huber GA 2010. Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. Am. J. Political Sci. 54:1153–73
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gift K, Gift T 2015. Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behav 37:3653–75
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gimpel JG, Hui IS 2015. Seeking politically compatible neighbors? The role of neighborhood partisan composition in residential sorting. Political Geogr 48:130–42
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Green D, Palmquist B, Schickler E 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  33. Healy A, Malhotra N 2013. Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 16:285–306
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hersh ED 2016. What the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry can teach us about political polarization. FiveThirtyEight https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-yankees-red-sox-rivalry-can-teach-us-about-political-polarization/
  35. Hersh ED, Ghitza Y 2019. Mixed-partisan households and electoral participation in the United States. PLOS ONE 13:e0203997
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hersh ED, Goldenberg MN 2016. Democratic and Republican physicians provide different care on politicized health issues. PNAS 114:4211811–16
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hetherington M, Rudolph T 2015. Why Washington Won't Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  38. Hogg MA 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5:3184–200
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Huber GA, Malhotra N 2017. Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior. J. Politics 79:1269–83
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Huddy L, Mason L, Aarøe L 2015. Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:11–17
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Iyengar S, Konitzer T, Tedin K 2018. The home as a political fortress: family agreement in an era of polarization. J. Politics 80:41326–38
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Iyengar S, Krupenkin M 2018. The strengthening of partisan affect. Adv. Political Psychol. 39:S1201–18
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Iyengar S, Sood G, Lelkes Y 2012. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin. Q. 76:3405–31
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Iyengar S, Westwood SJ 2015. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:3690–707
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kiefer E 2017. 'Til Trump do us part: the relationship deal breaker we never saw coming. Aug. 1. Refinery29 https://www.refinery29.com/2017/07/162856/talking-politics-with-partner-relationship-advice
  46. Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Ryan JB 2018. Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public Opin. Q. 82:2379–90
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Klinkner P 2004. Red and blue scare: the continuing diversity of the American electoral landscape. Forum 2:2 https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1035
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Klofstad C, McDermott R, Hatemi P 2013. The dating preferences of liberals and conservatives. Political Behav 35:3519–38
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lebo M, Cassino D 2007. The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychol 28:6719–46
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee F 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  51. Lelkes Y 2018. Affective polarization and ideological sorting: a reciprocal, albeit weak, relationship. Forum 16:1 https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2018-0005
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Lelkes Y, Sood G, Iyengar S 2017. The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. Am. J. Political Sci. 61:15–20
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lelkes Y, Westwood SJ 2017. The limits of partisan prejudice. J. Politics 79:2485–501
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lerman A, Sadin M, Trachtman S 2017. Policy uptake as political behavior: evidence from the Affordable Care Act. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:4755–70
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Levendusky MS 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  56. Levendusky MS 2013. Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Political Commun 30:4565–81
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Levendusky MS 2018a. Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization?. J. Politics 80:159–70
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Levendusky MS 2018b. When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opin. Q. 82:583–92
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Levendusky MS, Malhotra N 2016a. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?. Political Commun 33:2283–301
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Levendusky MS, Malhotra N 2016b. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80:S1378–91
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lipset SM, Rokkan S 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives Toronto: Free Press
  62. Maccoby EE, Maccoby N 1954. The interview: a tool of social science. Handb. Soc. Psychol. 1:449–87
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Mason L 2015. I disrespectfully agree: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:1128–45
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mason L 2018a. Ideologues without issues: the polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opin. Q. 82:S1280–301
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Mason L 2018b. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  66. McCarty N, Poole K, Rosenthal H 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  67. McConnell C, Malhotra N, Margalit Y, Levendusky M 2018. The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:15–18
    [Google Scholar]
  68. McGrath MC 2017. Economic behavior and the partisan perceptual screen. Q. J. Political Sci. 11:4363–83
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Michelitch K 2015. Does electoral competition exacerbate interethnic or interpartisan economic discrimination? Evidence from a market price bargaining experiment in Ghana. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:143–61
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Michelitch K, Utych S 2018. Electoral cycle fluctuations in partisanship: global evidence from eight-six countries. J. Politics 80:2412–27
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Montagnes BP, Peskowitz Z, McCrain J 2018. Bounding partisan approval rates under endogenous partisanship: why high presidential partisan approval may not be what it seems. J. Politics 81:1327–33
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Mummolo J, Nall C 2017. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Politics 79:145–59
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mutz DC 2002. Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 96:1111–26
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Nelson R 2015. The war on partisanship: how fighting polarization became its own cause. National Journal, Oct. 30. https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/91684/war-partisanship?mref=home
  75. Nicholson SP, Coe CM, Emory J, Song AV 2016. The politics of beauty: the effects of partisan bias on physical attractiveness. Political Behav 38:4883–98
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Panagopoulos C, Green DP, Krasno J, Schwam-Baird M, Moore E, Endres K 2016. Risky business: Does corporate political giving affect consumer behavior? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Philadelphia, PA: Sept. 1–4
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Perez-Truglia R, Cruces G 2017. Partisan interactions: evidence from a field experiment in the United States. J. Political Econ. 125:41208–43
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Pettigrew T, Tropp L 2011. When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact New York: Psychol. Press
  79. Pew Research Center. 2017. The partisan divide on political values grows even wider Tech. Rep., Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC: http://pewrsr.ch/2z0qBnt
  80. Prior M, Sood G, Khanna K 2015. You cannot be serious: the impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Q. J. Political Sci. 10:4489–518
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Puglisi R, Snyder JM 2011. Newspaper coverage of political scandals. J. Politics 73:3931–50
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Roccas S, Brewer MB 2002. Social identity complexity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6:288–106
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rogowski JC, Sutherland JL 2016. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behav 38:2485–508
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Ryan TJ 2017. How do indifferent voters decide? The political importance of implicit attitudes. Am. J. Political Sci. 61:4892–907
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Sears D 1975. Political socialization. Handbook of Political Science 2 F Greenstein, N Polsby 93–154 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Sood G, Iyengar S 2016. Coming to dislike your opponents: the polarizing impact of political campaigns Work. Pap., Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2840225
  87. Soroka S 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  88. Stoker L 1995. Life-cycle transitions and political participation: the case of marriage. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 89:2421–33
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Stroud NJ 2010. Polarization and partisan selective exposure. J. Commun. 60:3556–76
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Stroud NJ 2011. Niche News: The Politics of News Choice New York: Oxford Univ. Press on Demand
  91. Tajfel H 1978. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations London: Academic
  92. Tajfel H, Turner J 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations WG Austin, S Worchel 33–47 Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Theodoridis AG 2017. Me, myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and political cognition through the lens of implicit identity. J. Politics 79:41253–67
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Webster SW, Abramowitz AI 2017. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. Am. Politics Res. 45:4621–47
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Weisberg HF, Rusk JG 1970. Dimensions of candidate evaluation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 64:41167–85
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Westwood SJ, Iyengar S, Walgrave S, Leonisio R, Miller L, Strijbis O 2017. The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur. J. Political Res. 57:2333–54
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error