The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
Abstract
Although politics at the elite level has been polarized for some time, a scholarly controversy has raged over whether ordinary Americans are polarized. This book argues that they are and that the reason is growing polarization of worldviews - what guides people's view of right and wrong and good and evil. These differences in worldview are rooted in what Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler describe as authoritarianism. They show that differences of opinion concerning the most provocative issues on the contemporary issue agenda - about race, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and the use of force to resolve security problems - reflect differences in individuals' levels of authoritarianism. Events and strategic political decisions have conspired to make all these considerations more salient. The authors demonstrate that the left and the right have coalesced around these opposing worldviews, which has provided politics with more incandescent hues than before.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Consequently, rather than being a stable trait, individuals' authoritarian tendencies may temporarily increase when threats are psychologically salient [39], [55], [56], [57].”
From Pathogens and Politics: Further Evidence That Parasite Prevalence Predicts Authoritarianism (2013) · cites this paper as [55]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–919 of 919
Hypercompetitiveness and Loser’s Consent
Hetherington, M. J., Wilson, A., DeTamble, R., & Barker, D. C. (2025) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfaf063 · Cited by 13
Self-citationPedagogy of Fear: Folklore and the Far-Right in Weimar Germany
Amaya, E., & Braun, R. (2026) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224251409746
Zunino, E. A., & Arri, F. H. (2026) · Revista de Comunicación · doi:10.26441/rc.2025.1-2026-4311
Panish, A. R., Ollerenshaw, T., & Vitriol, J. A. (2026) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfag016
Lee, T. (2026) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592726104575 · Cited by 1
Cycles of Passivity: How Mainstreamers Unwittingly Enable Erosion of Democracy
Malhotra, N., & Voronov, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12670-2_9
The Leader and His Followers: The Allure of Fascistic States of Mind
Loewenstein, E. A. (2026) · Psychoanalytic Inquiry · doi:10.1080/07351690.2026.2676520
Serotonin–dopamine polarity and social polarization
Giovannoli, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1755161
Polarized White Attitudes Toward Black Lives: Did The Party Do It?
Bennett, M. (2026) · The Journal of Race Ethnicity and Politics · doi:10.1017/rep.2026.10078
Masket, S. E. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009601108.014
Stevens, D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21792-9_6
Jiang, L. (2026) · Australian Journal of Politics & History · doi:10.1111/ajph.70082
Jin, R., & Lindsay, S. C. (2026) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129261468675
More than a partisan pandemic: Worldview and COVID ‐19 response in the United States
Hetherington, M. J., Engelhardt, A., & Mehlhaff, I. D. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70125
Self-citationBertenshaw, Z., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2026) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.70116
The Reactionary Society: Affective Polarization, Collective Resentment, and the New Social Question
Yılmaz, Z. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21761-5_4
Defense Against the Dark Arts of Polarization: Legitimizing Corporate Goals for All
Lorenz, T. (2026) · Digital Commons - DU (University of Denver) · doi:10.56902/etdcrp.2026.102
Allen, L. G., & Lindsay, S. C. (2026) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2026.2734392
Metadata
- Authors
- Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2009-08-24
- OpenAlex
- W980306965
- Cited by
- 910
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 152 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 42
- FWCI
- 47.41
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (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 › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- authoritarianism, political polarization, public opinion, worldview, issue salience, race, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, use of force, left-right divide, 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