Testing the robustness of the ANES feeling thermometer indicators of affective polarization
Abstract
Affective polarization (AP)—the tendency of political partisans to view their opponents as a stigmatized “out group”—is now a major field of research. Relevant evidence in the United States derives primarily from a single source, the American National Election Studies (ANES) feeling thermometer time series. We investigate whether the design of the ANES produces overestimates of AP. We consider four mechanisms: overrepresentation of strong partisans, selection bias conditional on strong identification, priming effects of partisan content, and survey mode variation. Our analysis uses the first-ever collaboration between ANES and the General Social Survey and a novel experiment that manipulates the amount of political content in surveys. Our tests show that variation in survey mode has caused an artificial increase in the mixed-mode ANES time series, but the general increase in out-party animus is nonetheless real and not merely an artifact of selection bias or priming effects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The most frequently used measure of affective polarization is the ANES feeling thermometer items, a 0-100 scale for rating political groups.
“The most frequently used measure is the feeling thermometer items included in the ANES: a scale ranging from 0 (coldest) to 100 (warmest), which respondents use to state how they feel toward a given political group (here, their own and the other political party or parties; see Tyler & Iyengar, 2024).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Tyler & Iyengar, 2024
Tyler and Iyengar (2024) show that while the ANES overestimates the share of strong partisans relative to the GSS, that too has little effect on the level of affective polarization reported in the ANES.
“Likewise, Tyler and Iyengar (2024) show that while the ANES overestimates the share of strong partisans relative to the GSS (likely because strong partisans are more interested in taking an hour-long political survey), that too has little effect on the level of affective polarization reported in the ANES.”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Tyler and Iyengar (2024)
Tyler and Iyengar (2024) show no support for the political priming hypothesis: GSS respondents who answered few political questions were no less polarized than ANES respondents who answered many political questions.
“Relying on the GSS respondents who completed the ANES items, Tyler and Iyengar (2024) show no support for the political priming hypothesis.The GSS respondents, who answered very few political questions before answering the affective polarization battery, were no less polarized than the ANES respondents who had responded to numerous questions about politics.”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Tyler and Iyengar (2024)
Cites
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thornton, J. R. (2025) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x251347623 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- TYLER, M., & IYENGAR, S.
- Affiliations
- Rice University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- TYLER, MATTHEW
- IYENGAR, SHANTO
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2023-12-12
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1570-1576
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W4389617362
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 37.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- affective polarization, feeling thermometers, American National Election Studies, selection bias, priming effect, survey mode effects, party identification, General Social Survey, mixed-mode surveys, measurement robustness
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
