Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- 23 The Political Psychology of Inequality
- 24 How Social Class Influences Political Choices
- 25 Fear and Loathing in American Politics
- 26 Political Extremism
- 27 The Politics of Hate
- 28 Populism
- 29 A Cultural Theory of Autocracy-vs-Democracy
- 30 Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
- 31 Collective Action for Social Change
- 32 Opinion Formation and Polarisation in the News Feed Era
- 33 Conspiracy Theory Belief and Conspiratorial Thinking
- 34 Political Psychology and the Climate Crisis
- 35 The Political Psychology of Cyberterrorism
- 36 Reconciliation in the Aftermath of Collective Violence
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- Index
- References
25 - Fear and Loathing in American Politics
A Review of Affective Polarisation
from Part III - Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Foundations of Political Psychology
- Part II The Politics of Intergroup Attitudes
- Part III Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
- 23 The Political Psychology of Inequality
- 24 How Social Class Influences Political Choices
- 25 Fear and Loathing in American Politics
- 26 Political Extremism
- 27 The Politics of Hate
- 28 Populism
- 29 A Cultural Theory of Autocracy-vs-Democracy
- 30 Psychological Theories Meet the Challenge of Persuading and Mobilising Voters
- 31 Collective Action for Social Change
- 32 Opinion Formation and Polarisation in the News Feed Era
- 33 Conspiracy Theory Belief and Conspiratorial Thinking
- 34 Political Psychology and the Climate Crisis
- 35 The Political Psychology of Cyberterrorism
- 36 Reconciliation in the Aftermath of Collective Violence
- Part IV Diversifying Perspectives in Political Psychology
- Index
- References
Summary
While most research on party polarisation previously focused on the ideological extremity of party positions, in recent years a new form of polarisation has emerged in the American electorate. Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and fear those from the other party. This phenomenon of animosity across the party divide is known as affective polarisation.I summarise the evidence bearing on the extent of affective polarisation in the United States, trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and identify the psychological mechanisms that contribute to heightened out-party animus.In closing, I consider the implications of heightened partisan animus for the democratic process.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology , pp. 399 - 413Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493Google Scholar
Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: Divided they blog. Paper presented at the Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem, WWW2005, Chiba, Japan, 10–14 May.Google Scholar
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berinsky, A. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J., & Sobieraj, S. (2013). The outrage industry: Political opinion media and the new incivility. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. G., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420030103Google Scholar
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114(40), 10612–10617. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706588114Google Scholar
Boysen, G. A., Vogel, D. L., & Madon, S. (2006). A public versus private administration of the implicit association test. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(6), 845–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.318Google Scholar
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2018). Political competition, partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000526Google Scholar
Chen, M. K., & Rohla, R. (2018). The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science, 360(6392), 1020–1024. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1433CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dias, N., & Lelkes, Y. (2021). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics, 70, 556–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160808050XGoogle Scholar
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/POQ/NFW006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021Google Scholar
Fowler, E. F., Franz, M. M., & Ridout, T. N. (2018). Political advertising in the United States. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J., Anastasio, P., Bachman, B., & Rust, M. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geer, J. G. (2012). The news media and the rise of negativity in presidential campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(3), 422–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000492Google Scholar
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799–1839. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr044Google Scholar
Gift, K., & Gift, T. (2015). Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior, 37(3), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9286-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J., & King, G. (2011). General purpose computer-assisted clustering and conceptualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 108(7), 1643–1650. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018067108Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I, Harvey, O. J., & Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(2), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048480Google Scholar
Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533Google Scholar
Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aaroe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.xGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Konitzer, T., & Tedin, K. L. (2018). The home as a political fortress: Family agreement in an era of polarization. Journal of Politics, 80(4), 1326–1338. https://doi.org/10.1086/698929Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. T. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. (2019). The origin and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-07303Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, C., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013). The dating preference of liberals and conservatives. Political Behavior, 35(3), 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11109-012-9207-ZGoogle Scholar
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12237Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016). Misperceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv045Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. In Gardner, L. (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 449–487). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJPS.12089Google Scholar
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, C., Malhotra, N., Margalit, Y., & Levendusky, M. S. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12330Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Orr, L. V., & Huber, G. A. (2020). The policy basis of measured partisan animosity in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12498Google Scholar
Peterson, E., Goel, S., & Iyengar, S. (2021). Partisan selective exposure in online news consumption: Evidence from the 2016 presidential campaign. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.55Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2017). The partisan divide on political values grows even wider. Technical Report. http://pewrsr.ch/2z0qBntGoogle Scholar
Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy. How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878425Google Scholar
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01Google Scholar
Rogowski, J. C. (2014). Electoral choice, ideological conflict, and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12059Google Scholar
Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016). How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior, 38(2), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1975). Political socialization. In Greenstein, F. I. & Polsby, N. W. (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 2, pp. 93–153). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.233Google Scholar
Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2016). Coming to dislike your opponents: The polarizing impact of political campaigns. Available at SSRN 2840225.Google Scholar
Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2018). All in the eye of the beholder: Asymmetry in ideological accountability. In Lavine, H. & Taber, C. S. (Eds.), The feeling, thinking citizen (pp. 195–227). Routledge.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8xnhtdGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (33–47). Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Theodoridis, A. G. (2017). Me, myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and political cognition through the lens of implicit identity. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1253–1267. https://doi.org/10.1086/692738Google Scholar
Weisberg, H. F., & Rusk, J. G. (1970). Dimensions of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1167–1185.Google Scholar
West, E. A., & Iyengar, S. (2020). Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization. Political Behavior, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09637-yGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by