CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 493Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

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

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Gidron, American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective, 10.1017/9781108914123
  2. Mickey, 2017, Is America still a democracy?, Foreign Affairs, 20, 20
  3. Bale, 2019, Brexit and Public Opinion, 27
  4. Kalmoe, 2019, Lethal Mass Partisanship: Prevalence, Correlates, and Electoral Contingencies
  5. 10.31219/osf.io/j7d4t · DOI
  6. Volkens, 2017, The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR)
  7. Bonikowski, Bart , Feinstein, Yuval , and Bock, Sean . (2019). The Polarization of Nationalist Cleavages and the 2016 US Presidential Election. Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. · DOI
  8. 10.1017/9781108644655 · DOI
  9. Anton, Michael . (2016). “The Flight 93 election.” Claremont Review of Books, Digital Edition, September 5, 2016.
  10. 10.1515/9781400831593 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 493

Related

See all

Metadata

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