How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation
Open accessAbstract
Competition is a defining element of democracy. One of the most noteworthy events over the last quarter-century in U.S. politics is the change in the nature of elite party competition: The parties have become increasingly polarized. Scholars and pundits actively debate how these elite patterns influence polarization among the public (e.g., have citizens also become more ideologically polarized?). Yet, few have addressed what we see as perhaps more fundamental questions: Has elite polarization altered the way citizens arrive at their policy opinions in the first place and, if so, in what ways? We address these questions with a theory and two survey experiments (on the issues of drilling and immigration). We find stark evidence that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions. Specifically, polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases the impact of substantive information and, perhaps ironically, stimulates greater confidence in those—less substantively grounded—opinions. We discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
La polarización dentro de las elites causa la polarización pública, o en determinados segmentos a través de exposición mediática y discursos públicos.
“La polarización dentro de las elites causa la polarización pública, o en determinados segmentos a través de exposición mediática y discursos públicos (Druckman et al, 2013).”
From ¿Es válido atribuir la polarización política a la comunicación digital? Sobre burbujas, plataformas y polarización afectiva (2020) · cites this paper as Druckman et al, 2013
The Results report that, on a given issue, citizens' opinions move toward the position endorsed by their party under high elite polarization. The Conclusion cautions that broader public polarization may occur issue by issue and depends partly on citizens' information-search patterns. The paper does not establish media exposure and public discourse as the channels causing that polarization. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredProcesses such as self-categorization, in-group favouritism and out-group derogation contribute to political polarization by encouraging partisans to engage in various forms of motivated reasoning on behalf of their political party or ideological group.
“Processes such as self-categorization, in-group favouritism and out-group derogation contribute to political polarization by encouraging partisans to engage in various forms of motivated reasoning — including selective information exposure or avoidance and confirmation or disconfirmation biases — on behalf of their political party or ideological group3,39,91,94,141–144.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSeveral experiments have demonstrated that representing political elites as highly polarized leads participants to express higher levels of issue-based and affective polarization.
“several experiments have demonstrated that representing political elites as highly polarized (either in terms of ideological abstractions or specific issue positions) leads participants to express higher levels of issue-based and affective polarization39,83.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
The Partisan Cues and Polarization section (page unavailable) describes an experiment contrasting moderate and polarized party elites. The Results report that, under high elite polarization, participants’ issue opinions followed their party’s endorsement, and the Conclusion suggests citizens may polarize issue by issue. Our copy does not report that the experiments measured or increased affective polarization, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPartisan-motivated reasoning decreases the relative weight of substantive arguments vis-à-vis partisan cues in citizens' political opinion formation.
“Partisanmotivated reasoning undermines decisionmaking as it decreases the relative weight of substantive arguments visávis partisan cues in citizens' political opinion formation (Bolsen et al., 2014;Druckman et al., 2013)”
From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2013
Ideological polarization can enhance the role of partisan bias in public opinion formation.
“enhance the role of partisan bias in public opinion formation”
From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2013
Ideological polarization increases the role of partisan cues vis-à-vis substantive arguments in individuals' opinion formation.
“Furthermore, a survey experiment found that ideological polarization increases the role of partisan cues visávis substantive arguments in the opinion formation of individuals (Druckman et al., 2013).”
From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2013
Ideological polarization enhances the effect of partisan cues relative to substantive arguments on political opinion formation.
“and to enhance the effect of partisan cues (relative to substantive arguments) on political opinion formation (Druckman et al., 2013).”
From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2013
The extent to which elite-level polarization has influenced the belief systems of ordinary citizens remains a matter of debate.
“At the same time, the extent to which elite-level polarization has influenced the belief systems of ordinary citizens remains a matter of debate8,27,35–40.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This is the type of dynamic uncovered by Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes (2012) who find that negative campaigning between parties, which stems from increased polarization, is “an especially important contextual factor that heightens the salience of partisan identity.””
BackgroundLupia, A. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944882 · Cited by 1,850 · see citing works
Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions
Bartels, L. M. (2002) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1021226224601 · Cited by 1,468 · see citing works
Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate
BULLOCK, J. G. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000165 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 47
- Bolsen, Toby, and Fay Lomax Cook. 2008. "Public Opinion on En- ergy Policy, 1974-2006." Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2): 364-88.
- Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. "Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies." American Political Science Review 101 (November): 637-55.
- Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2010. "Dynamic Public Opinion." American Political Science Review 104 (November): 663-80.
- Erik P. Bucy and R. Lance Holbert. New York: Routledge, 238-67.
- Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. N.d. "Strategies of Counter- framing." Journal of Politics. Forthcoming.
- Druckman, James N. 2004. "Political Preference Formation." Amer- ican Political Science Review 98 (November): 671-86.
- Brian F. Schaffner and Patrick J. Sellers. New York: Routledge, 101-20.
- Druckman, James N. 2011. "What's It All About?: Framing in Polit- ical Science." In Perspectives on Framing, ed. Gideon Keren. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis, 279-302.
- Druckman, James N. 2012. "The Politics of Motivation." Critical Review: A Journal of Politics andSociety 24 (2): 199-216. Vol. 107, No.
- Druckman, James N., and Toby Bolsen. 2011. "Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies." Journal of Communication 61 (August): 659-88.
- Druckman, James N., Jordan Fein, and Thomas J. Leeper. 2012. "A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability." American Political Science Review 106 (May): 430-54.
- Druckman, James N., Cari Lynn Hennessy, Kristi St. Charles, and Jonathan Weber. 2010. "Competing Rhetoric over Time." Journal of Politics 72 (January): 136-48.
- Druckman, James N., and Thomas J. Leeper. 2012a. "Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects." American Journal of Political Science 56 (October): 875- 96.
- Druckman, James N., and Kjersten R. Nelson. 2003. "Framing and Deliberation." American Journal of Political Science 47 (October): 729-45.
- Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. "Political Polariza- tion in the American Public." Annual Review of Political Science 11 (June): 563-88.
- Goren, Paul, Christopher M. Federico, and Miki Caul Kittilson. 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression." American Journal of Political Science 55 (October): 805-20.
- Green, Donald P., Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Par- tisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- H änggli, Regula, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2010. "Political Framing Strategies and Their Impact on Media Framing in a Swiss Direct- Democratic Campaign." Political Communication 27 (2): 141-57.
- Hetherington, Marc. 2009. "Putting Polarization in Perspective." British Journal of Political Science 39 (April): 413-48.
- Jacobson, Gary C. 2008. A Divider, Not a Uniter. New York: Pearson.
- Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. "How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opin- ions." American Journal of Political Science 53 (April): 411-26.
- Lascher, Edward L., and John L. Korey. 2011. "The Myth of the Independent Voter, California Style." California Journal of Politics and Policy 3 (January).
- Lavine, Howard, Christopher Johnston, and Marco Steenbergen. 2012. The Ambivalent Partisan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Levendusky, Matthew S. 2010. "Clearer Cues, More Consistent Vot- ers." Political Behavior 32 (1): 111-31.
- Mackie, Diane M., Leila T. Worth, and Arlene G. Asuncion. 1990. "Processing of Persuasive In-group Messages." Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology 58 (May): 812-22.
- Mansbridge, Jane. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- McCarty, Nolan, Howard Rosenthal, and Keith T. Poole. 2006. Po- larized America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance." American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567-83.
- Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011. "Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence." Journal of Politics 73 (October): 1165-77.
- Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. "Polarizing Cues." American Journal of Political Science 56 (January): 52-66.
- Nir, Lilach. 2011. "Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion Per- ception." Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (3): 504-32.
- Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Petersen, Michael Bang, Rune Slothuus, and Lise Togeby. 2010. "Political Parties and Value Consistency in Public Opinion For- mation." Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (3): 530-50.
- Peterson, Erik. 2011. "Competitive Partisan Issue Framing." Under- graduate honors thesis. Northwestern University. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Political Sur- vey. 2011. iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut (April 22, 2011).
- Redlawsk, David. 2002. "Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration." Journal of Politics 64 (November): 1021-44.
- Slothuus, Rune, and Claes H. de Vreese. 2010. "Political Parties, Mo- tivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects." Journal of Politics 72 (3): 630-45.
- Smith, Joanne R., Deborah J. Terry, Timothy R. Crosier, and Julie M. Duck. 2005. "The Importance of the Relevance of the Issue to the Group in Voting Intentions." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27 (2): 163-70.
- Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sniderman, Paul M., and Edward H. Stiglitz. 2012. The Reputational Premium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Sniderman, Paul, and Sean M. Theriault. 2004. "The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing." In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, eds. W. E. Saris and P. M. Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133-65.
- Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs." American Journal of Political Science 50 (July): 755-69.
- Transue, John E., Daniel J. Lee, and John H. Aldrich. 2009. "Treat- ment Spillover Effects across Survey Experiments." Political Anal- ysis 17 (2): 143-61.
- Ura, Joseph Daniel, and Christopher R. Ellis. 2012. "Partisan Moods." Journal of Politics 74 (January): 277-91.
- Visser, Penny S., George Y. Bizer, and Jon A. Krosnick. 2006. "Ex- ploring the Latent Structure of Strength-Related Attitude At- tributes." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38. Ed. M. Zanna. San Diego: Academic Press.
- White, Jonathan, and Lea Ypi. 2011. "On Partisan Political Justifica- tion." American Political Science Review 105 (May): 381-96.
- Wyer, Natalie A. 2010. "Selective Self-Categorization." Journal of Social Psychology 150 (September): 452-70.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183 · see citing works
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
Self-citationThe evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Their Consequences
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/697253 · Cited by 586 · see citing works
Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization
Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7 · Cited by 503 · see citing works
The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2017) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12237 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
The muted consequences of correct information about immigration
Hopkins, D. J., Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2019) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/699914 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., & Taddy, M. (2019) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta16566 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Scientific communication in a post-truth society
Iyengar, S., & Massey, D. S. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805868115 · Cited by 374 · see citing works
No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12325 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Self-citationCognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Self-citationThe US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication
Bolsen, T., & Shapiro, M. A. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241 · see citing works
“Partisan cues from polarized elites powerfully influence the candidate evaluations and policy views of their supporters (Levendusky, 2010; Druckman et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPolarization in the contemporary political and media landscape
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change
Zhou, J. (2016) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Understanding Polarization: Meanings, Measures, and Model Evaluation
Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Berger, W. J., Sack, G., Fisher, S., Flocken, C., & Holman, B. (2017) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/688938 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization
Enders, A. M., & Armaly, M. T. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J., & Taddy, M. (2016) · doi:10.3386/w22423 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
A Framework for the Study of Persuasion
Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Self-citationContext matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective
Urman, A. (2020) · Media, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443719876541 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Waisbord, S. (2020) · REVISTA SAAP · doi:10.46468/rsaap.14.2.a1 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Wojcieszak, M., Casas, A., Yu, X., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn9418 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Intellectual humility in the sociopolitical domain
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Newman, B. (2020) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2020.1714711 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Arceneaux, K., & Truex, R. (2023) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592722000901 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Wagner, M. W., & Gruszczynski, M. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699017702836 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization
Stagnaro, M. N., & Amsalem, E. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58697-3 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“…example, polarized policy attitudes have been shown to exacerbate people ’ s feelings of hostility and dis-like toward out-partisans 6 , diminish the likelihood of inter-party interaction 7 , and increase individuals ’ tendency to evaluate policies based on group loyalties rather than evidence 8 .”
Wojcieszak et al No Polarization from Partisan News IJPP Forthcoming
Wojcieszak, M., de Leeuw, S. E., Menchen-Trevino, E., Lee, S., Huang-Isherwood, K. M., & Weeks, B. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/hqmuy · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review
Hajnal, Á. (2024) · Intersections · doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v10i2.1310 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- DRUCKMAN, J. N., PETERSON, E., & SLOTHUUS, R.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- DRUCKMAN, JAMES N.
- PETERSON, ERIK
- SLOTHUUS, RUNE
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-01-25
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-79
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2114986694
- Cited by
- 1,569
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 163 · 2025: 174 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 179 · 2021: 156 · 2020: 199 · 2019: 140 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 295.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.au.dk
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Northwestern University
- Aarhus Universitet
- Samfund og Erhverv, Det Frie Forskningsråd
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- public opinion formation, party endorsement, ideological polarization, democratic competition, oil well drilling, immigration, survey experiment
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
