The Psychology and Neuroscience of Partisanship

doi:10.1017/9781108779104.005

4 - The Psychology and Neuroscience of Partisanship

from Part I - Foundations of Political Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022

Claire Robertson and

Edited by

Danny Osborne and

Chris G. Sibley

Show author details

Danny Osborne: Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Chris G. Sibley: Affiliation:
University of Auckland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Why have citizens become increasingly polarised? One answer is that there is increasing identification with political parties – a process known as partisanship. This chapter focuses on the role that social identity and partisanship play in contemporary politics. Partisan identities influence political preferences, such that partisans are more likely to agree with policies that were endorsed by their political party, regardless of the policy content, and, in some cases, their own ideological beliefs. We will describe how partisanship mirrors other forms of social identity, both behaviourally and in the brain. However, partisanship also has distinct biological origins, and consequences in political domains such as fake news sharing, conspiracy theory beliefs, and voting behaviour. Our chapter focuses on the psychology and neuroscience of partisanship within broader sociopolitical contexts.

Keywords

Partisanship Polarisation Social identity Neuroscience Politics

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology , pp. 50 - 67

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108779104.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Muñoz, J. (2013). Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1664–1692.Google Scholar

Anwar, S., Bayer, P., & Hjalmarsson, R. (2012). The impact of jury race in criminal trials. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(2), 1017–1055.Google Scholar

Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baron, J., & Jost, J. T. (2019). False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 292–303.Google Scholar

Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bartlett, J., & Miller, C. (2010). The power of unreason: Conspiracy theories, extremism and counter-terrorism. Demos.Google Scholar

Bartra, O., McGuire, J. T., & Kable, J. W. (2013). The valuation system: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. Neuroimage, 76, 412–427.Google Scholar

Blais, A., & Young, R. (1999). Why do people vote? An experiment in rationality. Public Choice, 99(1–2), 39–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization (No. w26669). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26669.Google Scholar

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.Google Scholar

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.Google Scholar

Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108–117.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2020, 24 April). Most Democrats who are looking for a relationship would not consider dating a Trump voter. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/24/most-democrats-who-are-looking-for-a-relationship-would-not-consider-dating-a-trump-voter/Google Scholar

Brown, D. (1991). Human universals. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Bullock, J. G. (2007). Experiments on partisanship and public opinion: Party cues, false beliefs, and Bayesian updating [Ph.D. dissertation]. Stanford University.Google Scholar

Bullock, J. G. (2009). Partisan bias and the Bayesian ideal in the study of public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1109–1124.Google Scholar

Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 519–578.Google Scholar

Carlson, E. (2015). Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: A choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics, 67(2), 353–385.Google Scholar

Carlson, E. (2016). Finding partisanship where we least expect it: Evidence of partisan bias in a new African democracy. Political Behavior, 38(1), 129–154.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chawke, C., & Kanai, R. (2016). Alteration of political belief by non-invasive brain stimulation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 621.Google Scholar

Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1), 431–457.Google Scholar

Che, Y. K., & Mierendorff, K. (2019). Optimal dynamic allocation of attention. American Economic Review, 109(8), 2993–3029.Google Scholar

Cikara, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 245–274.Google Scholar

Cikara, M., Van Bavel, J. J., Ingbretsen, Z. A., & Lau, T. (2017). Decoding ‘us’ and ‘them’: Neural representations of generalized group concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), 621–631.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Coppock, A. E. (2016). Positive, small, homogeneous, and durable: Political persuasion in response to information [Doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.Google Scholar

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). On the precipice of a ‘majority-minority’ America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189–1197.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

DeSilver, D. (2013, 17 July). Partisan polarization, in Congress and among public, is greater than ever. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/17/partisan-polarization-in-congress-and-among-public-is-greater-than-ever/Google Scholar

DeSilver, D. (2017, 3 November). US trails most developed countries in voter turnout. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-elections-u-s-trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/Google Scholar

Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., et al. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273–291.Google Scholar

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Duran, N. D., Nicholson, S. P., & Dale, R. (2017). The hidden appeal and aversion to political conspiracies as revealed in the response dynamics of partisans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 268–278.Google Scholar

Edelson, J., Alduncin, A., Krewson, C., Sieja, J. A., & Uscinski, J. E. (2017). The effect of conspiratorial thinking and motivated reasoning on belief in election fraud. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 933–946.Google Scholar

Enders, A. M., & Smallpage, S. M. (2018). On the measurement of conspiracy beliefs. Research & Politics, 5(1), 1–4.Google Scholar

Enders, A. M., & Smallpage, S. M. (2019). Informational cues, partisan-motivated reasoning, and the manipulation of conspiracy beliefs. Political Communication, 36(1), 83–102.Google Scholar

Enders, A. M., Smallpage, S. M., & Lupton, R. N. (2020). Are all ‘birthers’ conspiracy theorists? On the relationship between conspiratorial thinking and political orientations. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 849–855.Google Scholar

Fazio, L. K., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2019). Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1705–1710.Google Scholar

Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1998). Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 794–818.Google Scholar

Gerber, A. S., & Huber, G. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 153–173.Google Scholar

Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S. (2012). The impact of social ties on group interactions: Evidence from minimal groups and randomly assigned real groups. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(1), 101–115.Google Scholar

Gollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Brady, W. J., et al. (2020). Partisan differences in physical distancing predict infections and mortality during the coronavirus pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 1186–1197.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gottlieb, J. (2018). Understanding active sampling strategies: Empirical approaches and implications for attention and decision research. Cortex, 102, 150–160.Google Scholar

Graf, J., & Aday, S. (2008). Selective attention to online political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(1), 86–100.CrossRef Google Scholar

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1049.Google Scholar

Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.Google Scholar

Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.Google Scholar

Harris, E., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Preregistered replication of ‘feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority’. Psychological Science, 32(3), 451–458.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hartstone, M., & Augoustinos, M. (1995). The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(2), 179–193.Google Scholar

Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282–294.Google Scholar

Hawkins, D. (2020, 17 May). Eric Trump claims coronavirus is Democratic hoax, will ‘magically’ vanish after 2020 election. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/17/eric-trump-coronavirus/Google Scholar

Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2013). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. Routledge.Google Scholar

Hornsby, A. N., & Love, B. C. (2020). How decisions and the desire for coherency shape subjective preferences over time. Cognition, 200, 104244.Google Scholar

Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.Google Scholar

Hunt, J. (2017, 2 November). ‘Fake news’ named Collins Dictionary’s official Word of the Year for 2017. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fake-news-word-of-the-year-2017-collins-dictionary-donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-antifa-corbynmania-a8032751.html Google Scholar

Imhoff, R., Dieterle, L., & Lamberty, P. (2021). Resolving the puzzle of conspiracy worldview and political activism: Belief in secret plots decreases normative but increases nonnormative political engagement. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 71–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Political Psychology, 39(4), 201–218.Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.Google Scholar

Johnston, R. (2006). Party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 329–351.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., Hennes, E. P., & Lavine, H. (2013). ‘Hot’ political cognition: Its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. In Carlston, D. E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 851–875). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., Noorbaloochi, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem in political neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 317–318.Google Scholar

Jurkowitz, M., Mitchell, A., Shearer, E., & Walker, M. (2020). US media polarization and the 2020 election: A nation divided. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54–86.Google Scholar

Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002). Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5), 785–794.Google Scholar

Kevins, A., & Soroka, S. N. (2018). Growing apart? Partisan sorting in Canada, 1992–2015. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 51(1), 103–133.Google Scholar

Klein, E. (2020). Why we’re polarized. Profile Books.Google Scholar

Knutson, K. M., Wood, J. N., Spampinato, M. V., & Grafman, J. (2006). Politics on the brain: An fMRI investigation. Social Neuroscience, 1(1), 25–40.Google Scholar

Kozlowski, A., & Murphy, J. P. (2019, 11 September). Issue alignment and partisanship in the American public: Revisiting the ‘partisans without constraint’ thesis.Google Scholar

Krouwel, A., Kutiyski, Y., van Prooijen, J.-W., Martinsson, J., & Markstedt, E. (2017). Does extreme political ideology predict conspiracy beliefs, economic evaluations and political trust? Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(2), 435–462.Google Scholar

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.Google Scholar

Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501.Google Scholar

Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2010). Genetic evidence for multiple biological mechanisms underlying in-group favoritism. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1623–1628.Google Scholar

Lewis, G. J., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2014). Distinct heritable influences underpin in-group love and out-group derogation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 407–413.Google Scholar

Lupu, N. (2015). Party polarization and mass partisanship: A comparative perspective. Political Behavior, 37(2), 331–356.Google Scholar

Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, S. J. (2017). How negative partisanship affects voting behavior in Europe: Evidence from an analysis of 17 European multi-party systems with proportional voting. Research & Politics, 4(1).Google Scholar

McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., & Levendusky, M. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5–18.Google Scholar

McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.Google Scholar

McNamara, J., & Houston, A. (1980). The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 85(4), 673–690.Google Scholar

Meffert, M. F., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 27–51.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar

Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L., & Farhart, C. E. (2016). Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 824–844.Google Scholar

Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50(4), 655–663.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Morgan, G. S., Skitka, L. J., & Wisneski, D. C. (2010). Moral and religious convictions and intentions to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 10(1), 307–320.Google Scholar

Morisi, D., Jost, J. T., & Singh, V. (2019). An asymmetrical ‘president-in-power’ effect. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 614–620.Google Scholar

Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T., Kaggen, L., Campbell-Meiklejohn, D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2018). Amygdala structure and the tendency to regard the social system as legitimate and desirable. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(2), 133–138.Google Scholar

Nefes, T. S. (2014). Rationale of conspiracy theorizing: Who shot the President Chen Shui-bian? Rationality and Society, 26(3), 373–394.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pasek, J., Stark, T. H., Krosnick, J. A., & Tompson, T. (2015). What motivates a conspiracy theory? Birther beliefs, partisanship, liberal-conservative ideology, and anti-black attitudes. Electoral Studies, 40, 482–489.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pereira, A., Harris, E., & Van Bavel, J. J. (in press). Identity concerns drive belief: The impact of partisan identity on the belief and dissemination of true and false news.Google Scholar

Pew Research Center. (2014). Political polarization in the American public. www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/Google Scholar

Pew Research Center. (2017). The partisan divide on political values grows even wider. http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/Google Scholar

Pew Research Center. (2020). In changing U.S. electorate, race and education remain stark dividing lines. https://www.people-press.org/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/Google Scholar

Ripberger, J. T., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., et al. (2017). Bayesian versus politically motivated reasoning in human perception of climate anomalies. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), Article 114004.Google Scholar

Robbett, A., & Matthews, P. H. (2018). Partisan bias and expressive voting. Journal of Public Economics, 157, 107–120.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rollwage, M., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Metacognitive failure as a feature of those holding radical beliefs. Current Biology, 28(24), 4014–4021.Google Scholar

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880–892.Google Scholar

Samuels, D., & Zucco, C. Jr. (2014). The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 212–225.Google Scholar

Sarlin, B. (2018, 14 January). ‘Fake news’ went viral in 2016. This expert studied who clicked. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fake-news-went-viral-2016-expert-studied-who-clicked-n836581 Google Scholar

Schaffner, B. F., & Luks, S. (2018). Misinformation or expressive responding? What an inauguration crowd can tell us about the source of political misinformation in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 135–147.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shafranek, R. M. (2021). Political considerations in nonpolitical decisions: A conjoint analysis of roommate choice. Political Behavior, 43, 271–300.Google Scholar

Shearer, E., & Gottfried, J. (2017). News use across social media platforms 2017. Pew Research Center. https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/Google Scholar

Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal of Sociology, 60(4), 370–379.Google Scholar

Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2009). Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli, and attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 995–998.Google Scholar

Siddiqui, N. (2020). Who do you believe? Political parties and conspiracy theories in Pakistan. Party Politics, 26(2), 107–119.Google Scholar

Silverman, C. (2016, 16 November). This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook Google Scholar

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917.Google Scholar

Smallpage, S. M., Enders, A. M., & Uscinski, J. E. (2017). The partisan contours of conspiracy theory beliefs. Research & Politics, 4(4).Google Scholar

Stern, C., West, T. V., & Schmitt, P. G. (2014). The liberal illusion of uniqueness. Psychological Science, 25(1), 137–144.Google Scholar

Sternisko, A., Cichocka, A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The dark side of social movements: Social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 1–6.Google Scholar

Strandberg, T., Olson, J. A., Hall, L., Woods, A., & Johansson, P. (2020). Depolarizing American voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally susceptible to false attitude feedback. PLoS ONE, 15(2), Article e0226799.Google Scholar

Strandberg, T., Sivén, D., Hall, L., Johansson, P., & Pärnamets, P. (2018). False beliefs and confabulation can lead to lasting changes in political attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(9), 1382–1399.Google Scholar

Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.Google Scholar

Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., & Glathar, J. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgments. In Kuklinski, J. H. (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 198–226). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–103.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.Google Scholar

Tappin, M. B., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. R. (2020). Thinking clearly about casual inferences of politically motivated reasoning: Why paradigmatic study designs often undermine casual inference. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 81–87.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227–238.Google Scholar

Toner, K., Leary, M. R., Asher, M. W., & Jongman-Sereno, K. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2454–2462.Google Scholar

Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., et al. (2018, March). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Hewlett Foundation. https://www.hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf Google Scholar

Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (in press). Political psychology in the digital (mis)information age: A model of news belief and sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review.Google Scholar

Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The neural substrates of in-group bias: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1131–1139.Google Scholar

Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224.Google Scholar

Van Bavel, J. J., Sternisko, A., Harris, E., & Robertson, C. (2020). The social function of rationalization: An identity perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. J. (2020). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology, 42(1), 23–51.Google Scholar

Van Prooijen, J. W., Krouwel, A. P., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578.Google Scholar

Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Correlation not causation: The relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 34–51.Google Scholar

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.Google Scholar

Wilson, A., Parker, V., & Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223–228.Google Scholar

Xiao, Y. J., Coppin, G., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2016). Clarifying the role of perception in intergroup relations: Origins of bias, components of perception, and practical implications. Psychological Inquiry, 27(4), 358–366.Google Scholar

Xiao, Y. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). Sudden shifts in social identity swiftly shape implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 55–69.Google Scholar

Yudkin, D. A., Rothmund, T., Twardawski, M., Thalla, N., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2016). Reflexive intergroup bias in third-party punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1448–1459.Google Scholar

Zimerman, A., & Pinheiro, F. (2020). Appearances can be deceptive: Political polarization, agrarian policy, and coalitional presidentialism in Brazil. Politics & Policy, 48(2), 339–371.Google Scholar

Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 407–418.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.