The Correlates of Discord: Identity, Issue Alignment, and Political Hostility in Polarized America
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ideological polarization can contribute to affective or pernicious polarization.
“it may boost accountability and decrease corruption but can also contribute to the aforementioned harmful forms of polarization”
From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Bougher, 2017
Ideological polarization, sorting, and affective polarization are correlated.
“Recent work indicates that while ideological polarization, sorting, and affective polarization are correlated (Rogowski & Sutherland 2016, Bougher 2017, Webster & Abramowitz 2017), the relationship is weak, with sorting accounting for only about 5% of the variance in affective polarization (Lelkes 2018, Mason 2018a).”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Bougher 2017
Citizens who take more issue positions on the same side of the ideological spectrum as their party exhibit more out-group animus and affective polarization, adjusting for many other factors.
“For example, citizens who take more issue positions on the same side of the ideological spectrum as their party (that is, are more aligned) exhibit more out-group animus and affective polarization, adjusting for many other factors84.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [84]
Partisan alignment can influence affective polarization.
“Partisan alignment can also influence affective polarization.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [84]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 179
- Authors
- Bougher, L. D.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bougher, Lori D.
- Venue
- Political Behavior
- Published
- 2016-11-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 731-762
- ISSN
- 0190-9320 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6687
- OpenAlex
- W2555398226
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 16.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Political Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, in-group favoritism, social identity theory, partisan identity, political incivility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
