Skip to main content Accessibility help

Policy over party: comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization

  • Yphtach Lelkes (a1)


At least two theories have been offered that explain the rise of affective polarization. Some scholars, relying on social identity theory, argue that as the relevance of party identification increased, Americans became more likely to see their in-party in positive terms and the out-party in negative terms. Other scholars argue that affective polarization is a reaction to increasingly extreme political actors. This study seeks to arbitrate between these two theories of affective polarization through a survey experiment which asks respondents to rate candidates whose party (or lack thereof) and ideology (or lack thereof) is randomly assigned. In line with the policy-oriented view of affective polarization, respondents reacted far more strongly to ideology than party, especially if it was the ideology of the member of the out-party.


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Email:


Hide All
Abramowitz, AI and Webster, SW (2018) Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like Rabid Partisans. Political Psychology 39, 119135, ISSN: .
Alvarez, RM (1998) Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bafumi, J and Shapiro, RY (2009) A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics 71, 124.
Berinsky, AJ, Huber, GA and Lenz, GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:'s mechanical turk. Political Analysis 20, 351368.
Bougher, LD (2017) The correlates of discord: identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Political Behavior 39, 731762.
Cohen, GL (2003) Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 808.
Converse, PE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In Apter, D (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 206261.
Druckman, J and Levendusky, MS (2018) What do we measure when we measure affective partisanship? Public Opinion Quarterly. Paper in press.
Fiorina, M (2016) Has the American public polarized? Contemporary American Politics 2, 283301.
Fiorina, M (2017) Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Iyengar, S, Sood, G and Lelkes, Y (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76, 405431. ISSN: .
Iyengar, S, Lelkes, Y, Levendusky, M, Malhotra, N and Westwood, SJ (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States affective polarization: an outgrowth of Partisan social identity. Annual Review of Political Science, 135.
Johnston, CD (2018) Authoritarianism, affective polarization, and economic ideology. Political Psychology 39, 219238. ISSN: .
Kinder, DR and Kalmoe, NP (2017) Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Klar, S, Krupnikov, Y and Ryan, JB (2018) Affective polarization or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of Partisanship. Public opinon quarterly.
Lelkes, Y (2018) Affective polarization and ideological sorting: a reciprocal, Albeit weak, relationship. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 16, 6779.
Levendusky, MS (2009) The partisan sort: how liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans.
Levendusky, M and Malhotra, N (2016) Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?. Political Communication 33(2), 283301.
Mason, L (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mason, L and Wronski, J (2018) One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen Partisanship. Political Psychology 39, 257277. ISSN:
McConnell, C, Margalit, Y, Malhotra, N and Levendusky, M (2018) The economic consequences of Partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science 62, 518. ISSN: .
Mullinix, KJ, Leeper, TJ, Druckman, JN and Freese, J (2016) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, 109138. ISSN: .
Palfrey, TR and Poole, KT (1987) The relationship between information, ideology and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science 31, 511530.
Rogowski, JC and Sutherland, JL (2016) How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior 38, 485508. ISSN: .
Sniderman, PM (2000) Taking sides:a fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Lupia, A, McCubbins, MD and Popkin, SL (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6784.
Sniderman, P and Stiglitz, E (2012) The Reputational Premium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.\&btnG=\&hl=en\&as\_sdt=0,5#0.
Tomz, M and Van Houweling, RP (2009) The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103, 8398.
Webster, SW and Abramowitz, AI (2017) The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research 45, 621647. ISSN: .


Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Lelkes supplementary material

 PDF (115 KB)
115 KB
Supplementary materials

Lelkes Dataset


Policy over party: comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization

  • Yphtach Lelkes (a1)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.