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
Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019) · doi:10.1017/9781108595841 · Cited by 2,986
Jardina, A. E. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108645157 · Cited by 1,223
The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants
Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12138 · Cited by 941
Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055410000031 · Cited by 832
“…adaptations include, among others, RWA (e.g., Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1996; Ekehammar et al. 2004; Feldman 2003; Feldman and Stenner 1997; Hetherington and Weiler 2009; Stenner 2005), SDO (e.g., Ekehammar et al. 2004; Sidanius and Pratto 1999; Sidanius, Pratto, and Bobo 1996), Racial…”
BackgroundEthno‐nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective resentment
Bonikowski, B. (2017) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12325 · Cited by 644
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