CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 492Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective

Gidron, Noam, Adams, James, Horne, Will·2020·Cambridge University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1017/9781108914123
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

American political observers express increasing concern about affective polarization, i.e., partisans' resentment toward political opponents. We advance debates about America's partisan divisions by comparing affective polarization in the US over the past 25 years with affective polarization in 19 other western publics. We conclude that American affective polarization is not extreme in comparative perspective, although Americans' dislike of partisan opponents has increased more rapidly since the mid-1990s than in most other Western publics. We then show that affective polarization is more intense when unemployment and inequality are high; when political elites clash over cultural issues such as immigration and national identity; and in countries with majoritarian electoral institutions. Our findings situate American partisan resentment and hostility in comparative perspective, and illuminate correlates of affective polarization that are difficult to detect when examining the American case in isolation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/9781108914123

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Levels of affective polarization are not especially prominent in the United States.

    “These studies converge on the finding that levels of affective polarization are not especially prominent in the United States, but that polarization has grown stronger there than anywhere else.”

    From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Gidron, Adams, and Horne 2020

  • America's intensifying affective polarization is not part of a cross-national trend.

    “Gidron, Adams, and Horne (2020) analyze data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) for 20 democracies over the 1996–2017 period and conclude that America’s intensifying affective polarization is not part of a cross-national trend.”

    From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Gidron, Adams, and Horne (2020)

  • Affective polarization has been intensifying in some publics, diminishing in others, and remaining stable in most.

    “Existent research shows that affective polarization has been intensifying in some publics, diminishing in others, and remaining stable in most.”

    From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Gidron, Adams, and Horne (2020)

  • Gidron et al. (2020) identified Spain as the most affectively polarized country among twenty democracies.

    “Similarly, in their comparative study of twenty democracies, Gidron et al. (2020) identified Spain as the most affectively polarized country.”

    From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Gidron et al. (2020)

  • Spain is marked by high levels of affective polarization.

    “Spain is marked by high levels of affective polarization.”

    From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Gidron et al. (2020)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 141 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2020-11-02
DOI
10.1017/9781108914123
OpenAlex
W3095877091
Cited by
481
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 4
FWCI
83.81
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
affective polarization, political hostility, partisan divisions, comparative politics, unemployment, income inequality, immigration, national identity, majoritarian systems, political elites, United States

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