CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and Politics

Affective Polarization: Over Time, Through the Generations, and During the Lifespan

Open access
Phillips, Joseph·2022·Political Behavior
DOI 10.1007/s11109-022-09784-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The continual rise of affective polarization in the United States harms trust in democratic institutions. Scholars cite processes of ideological and social sorting of the partisan coalitions in the electorate as contributing to the rise of affective polarization, but how do these processes relate to one another? Most scholarship implicitly assumes period effects—that people change their feelings toward the parties uniformly and contemporaneously as they sort. However, it is also possible that sorting and affective polarization link with one another as a function of age or cohort effects. In this paper, I estimate age, period and cohort effects on affective polarization, partisan strength, and ideological sorting. I find that affective polarization increases over time, but also as people age. Age-related increases in affective polarization occur as a function of increases in partisan strength, and for Republicans, social sorting. Meanwhile, sorting only partially explains period effects. These effects combine such that each cohort enters the electorate more affectively polarized than the last.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11109-022-09784-4

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. W. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(S1), 119-135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ pops. 12479 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ahler, D., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964-981. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 697253 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Amira, K., Wright, J. C., & Goya-Tocchetto, D. (2020). In-group love versus out-group hate: Which is more important to partisans and when? Political Behavior, 43(2), 473-494. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11109-019-09557-6 · DOI
  4. Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2013). The impossibility of separating age, period, and cohort effects. Social Sci- ence & Medicine, 93(1), 163-165. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socsc imed. 2013. 04. 029 · DOI
  5. Bougher, L. D. (2017). The correlates of discord: Identity, issue alignment, and political hos- tility in polarized America. Political Behavior, 39(3), 731-762. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11109-016-9377-1 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater internet use is not associated with 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. 17065 88114 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political par- ticipation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 20824 25 · DOI
  8. Brewer, B. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance. Person- ality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428-437. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67204 271710 · DOI
  9. Brewer, M. B., Manzi, J. M., & Shaw, J. S. (1993). In-group identification as a function of deper- sonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science, 4(2), 88-92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 1993. tb004 66.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
  11. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464-477. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540-5907. 2006. 00196.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. Claggett, W. (1981). Partisan acquisition versus partisan intensity: Life-cycle, generation, and period effects, 1952-1976. American Journal of Political Science, 25(2), 193-214. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 21108 49 · DOI
  13. Dennis, N. A., Hayes, S. M., Prince, S. E., Madden, D. J., Huettel, S. A., & Cabeza, R. (2008). Effects of aging on the neural correlates of successful item and source memory encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 791-808. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0278-7393. 34.4. 791 · DOI
  14. Druckman, J. N., Gubitz, S. R., Lloyd, A. M., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019). How incivility on partisan media (de)polarizes the electorate. Journal of Politics, 81(1), 291-295. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 699912 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Egan, P. J. (2020). Identity as a dependent variable: How Americans shift their identities to align with their politics. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 699-716. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ajps. 12496 · DOI
  16. Engelhardt, A. M., & Utych, S. M. (2020). Grand old (tailgate) party: Partisan discrimination in apo- litical settings. Political Behavior, 42(3), 769-789. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11109-018-09519-4 · DOI
  17. Fienberg, S. E., & Mason, W. M. (1978). Identification and estimation of age-period-cohort models in the analysis of discrete archival data. In K.F. Schuessler (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, Vol.
  18. Fienberg, S. E., & Mason, W. M. (1979). Identification and estimation of age-period-cohort models in the analysis of discrete archival data. Sociological Methodology, 10(1), 1-67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 270764 · DOI
  19. Ghitza, Y., Gelman, A., & Auerbach, J. (Forthcoming). The great society, Reagan's revolution, and generations of presidential voting. American Journal of Political Science.
  20. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
  21. Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group inter- est democrats. University of Chicago Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ acprof: oso/ 97801 90626 594. 001. 0001 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Politi- cal Science Review, 95(3), 619-631. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0003 05540 10030 45 · DOI
  23. Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2015). Why Washington won't work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.
  24. Highton, B., & Kam, C. D. (2011). The long-term dynamics of partisanship and issue orientations. Jour- nal of Politics, 73(1), 202-215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0022 38161 00009 64 · DOI
  25. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1-17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0003 05541 40006 04 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Iacobucci, D. (2008). Mediation analysis. SAGE Publications.
  27. Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M. (2018). The strengthening of partisan affect. Advances in Political Psychol- ogy, 39(S1), 201-218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ pops. 12487 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Jennings, M. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 228-252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 297749 · DOI
  29. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton University Press.
  30. Klar, S. (2018). When common identities decrease trust: An experimental study of partisan women. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 610-622. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ajps. 12366 · DOI · Paper page
  31. LaPierre, T. A., & Hughes, M. E. (2009). Population aging in Canada and the United States. In P. Uhlen- perg (Ed.), International handbook of population aging. Springer.
  32. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2008). Older but wiser? Effects of age on political cognition. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 168-185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0022 38160 70801 27 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (2013). Who votes now? Demographics, issues, inequality, and turnout in the United States. Princeton University Press.
  34. Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  35. Levendusky, M. S. (2018a). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59-70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 693987 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Luo, L., & Hodges, J. S. (2020). The age-period-cohort-interaction model for describing and investigating inter-cohort deviations and intra-cohort life-course dynamics. Sociological Methods & Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00491 24119 882451 · DOI
  37. Marshall, B. (2019). Affective polarization in a group competition framework. Dissertation. https:// www. proqu est. com/ openv iew/ 4a1e9 4de36 081ce dfa22 b1a09 b3ef2 b5/1? pq-origs ite= gscho lar& cbl= 44156
  38. 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. 12089 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Mason, L. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351-377. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ poq/ nfw001 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Mason, L., & Wronski, J. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(S1), 257-277. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ pops. 12485 · DOI
  41. Mather, M., Jacobsen, L. A., & Pollard, K. M. (2015). Aging in the United States. Population Bulle- tin, 70(2), 1-23. https:// www. prb. org/ wp-conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2019/ 07/ popul ation-bulle tin-2015-70-2- aging-us. pdf
  42. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and une- qual riches. MIT Press.
  43. 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. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ajps. 12330 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Miller, P. R., & Conover, P. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225-239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10659 12915 577208 · DOI
  45. Osborne, D., Sears, D. O., & Valentino, N. A. (2011). End of the solidly democratic south: The impres- sionable-years hypothesis. Political Psychology, 32(1), 81-108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9221. 2010. 00796.x · DOI
  46. Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. Ameri- can Political Science Review, 96(1), 41-56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0003 05540 20042 27 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7957P SPR06 02_ 01 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Shafranek, R. M. (2020). Political consequences of partisan prejudice. Political Psychology, 41(1), 35-51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ pops. 12596 · DOI
  49. Shafranek, R. M. (2021). Political considerations in nonpolitical decisions: A conjoint analysis of room- mate choice. Political Behavior, 43(1), 271-300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11109-019-09554-9 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Jacques, P.L., Dolcos, F., & Cabeza, R. (2009). Effects of aging on functional connectivity of the amygdala for subsequent memory of negative pictures: A network analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. Psychological Science, 20(1), 74-84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2008. 02258.x · DOI
  51. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole.
  52. Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621-647. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15326 73X17 703132 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Wieck, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2015). Age differences in empathy: Multidirectional and context-depend- ent. Psychology & Aging, 30(2), 407-419. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0039 001 · DOI
  54. Wohl, M. J. A., Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Caouette, J., Hayes, N., & Hornsey, M. J. (2015). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 714-725. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67215 576721 · DOI
  55. Yang, Y., Fu, W. J., & Land, K. C. (2004). Methodological comparison of age-period-cohort models: The intrinsic estimator and conventional generalized linear models. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 75-110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0081-1750. 2004. 00148.x · DOI
  56. Yang, Y., Schulhofer-Wohl, S., Fu, W. J., & Land, K. C. (2008). The intrinsic estimator for age-period- cohort analysis: What it is and how to use it. American Journal of Sociology, 113(6), 1697-1736. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 587154 · DOI
  57. Zhang, X., Fung, H. H., Stanley, J. T., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Ho, M. Y. (2013). Perspective taking in older age revisited: A motivational perspective. Developmental Psychology, 49(10), 1848-1858. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0031 211 · DOI
  58. Zingher, J. N. (2018). Polarization, demographic change, and white flight from the democratic party. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 860-872. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 696994 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, J.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Phillips, Joseph
ORCID
Phillips, Joseph
Venue
Political Behavior
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-03-07
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
1483-1508
ISSN
  • 0190-9320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6687
DOI
10.1007/s11109-022-09784-4
OpenAlex
W4220936985
Cited by
74
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 2
FWCI
47.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Political Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
affective polarization, age effects, period effects, cohort effects, ideological sorting, social sorting, trust in democratic institutions, generational change, American politics

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