CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsAmerican Political and Social Dynamics

Confronting Asymmetric Polarization

Hacker, Jacob S., Pierson, Paul·2015·Solutions to Political Polarization in America
DOI 10.1017/cbo9781316091906.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The goal of this volume is to explore possible solutions to a host of problems associated with polarization. Effective prescription, however, hinges on accurate diagnosis. Far too many discussions of polarization are based on a flawed one: that polarization is broadly similar in degree and kind at both ends of the political spectrum. This claim that political polarization is symmetrical is false: polarization is mainly driven by a sharp retreat from moderation on the right side of the spectrum. This development has occurred across multiple dimensions, from voting patterns and intensity of preferences to concrete policy demands and willingness to use once-rare hardball tactics. Prescriptions that ignore or downplay this reality are very likely to be ineffective and may even make the real problems worse. This chapter briefly summarizes the evidence that contemporary polarization is asymmetric, before turning to a slightly longer discussion of the mechanisms that generate and sustain this outcome. This discussion in turn provides the basis for identifying initiatives that might address the central and most corrosive aspect of our “polarized politics”: the ever greater extremism of the modern Republican Party. POLARIZATION IS ASYMMETRIC Although it is still not conventional to frame discussions of polarization as asymmetric, there is mounting evidence that the increasing distance between the two parties is primarily a consequence of the Republican Party's 35-year march to the rig…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781316091906.003

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Issue or ideological polarization implies either symmetric polarization, in which two groups move in opposite, more extreme directions, or asymmetric polarization, in which one group becomes more extreme than the other.

    “This implies either that two groups — such as liberals and conservatives or leftists and rightists — are moving in opposite, more extreme directions (symmetric polarization) or that one group is becoming more extreme than the other (asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73–75).”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [73]

  • In the USA, in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise are more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification.

    “in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise seem to be more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification in the USA than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification10,73–75.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [73]

  • Liberals and conservatives differ in terms of system-justifying versus system-challenging motives, which might help to explain asymmetric polarization.

    “However, they differ in terms of system-justifying (versus system-challenging) motives, which might help to explain asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73,74.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [73]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California System (US)
ORCID
Venue
Solutions to Political Polarization in America
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2015-04-27
Pages
59-70
DOI
10.1017/cbo9781316091906.003
OpenAlex
W2506358156
Cited by
68
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
22.18
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 8 d)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
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 › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
Keywords
Republican Party, elite polarization, Tea Party movement, voting behavior, preference intensity, policy demands, 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