CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPolitical Theory and Democracy

A new measure of affective polarization

Open access
CAMPOS, NICOLAS, FEDERICO, CHRISTOPHER·2026·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s0003055425000255
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Affective polarization has emerged as an important construct in the literature onpartisanship. However, most efforts to measure it have relied on simple pre-existingindices, potentially missing the complexity of affective polarization. In this article, weaddress these concerns by reconceptualizing and deriving a new measure of affectivepolarization. Drawing on the notion of political sectarianism from Finkel et al. (2020)and other lines of research in political behavior and social psychology, we develop andvalidate a novel multidimensional measure of affective polarization consisting of threeparts: othering, aversion, and moralization. Our analyses yield a valid and reliablenine-item measure with three subdimensions. These subdimensions and the full scalebroadly correlate with various measures of political identity, anti-democratic elite ac-tion, and political violence. Importantly, we find that the subdimensions have differentpatterns of correlation with key criterion variables, suggesting that othering, aversion,and moralization are distinct components of affective polarization.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055425000255

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Campos and Federico (2026) do not find systematic partisan variation in the connection between political sectarianism and support for elite anti-democratic actions or political violence.

    “Campos and Federico (2026, p. 16) do not find systematic partisan variation in the connection between political sectarianism and support for elite anti-democratic actions or political violence.”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Campos and Federico (2026)

    The Results report that associations between the affective polarization scale and anti-democratic attitudes were generally similar across parties, with exceptions. But the political-violence Results explicitly report stronger associations among Republicans than Democrats for the full scale and some subscales. Thus the paper makes a contrary finding for the violence part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Campos and Federico (2026) derived their own sectarianism measures but analyzed the three elements separately.

    “Campos and Federico (2026) derived their own sectarianism measures but analyzed the three elements of sectarianism separately.”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Campos and Federico (2026)

    The Abstract says Campos and Federico derived a three-part measure and analyzed its subdimensions; the ‘Studies 2, 3 and 4’ section confirms that they modeled the three components as separate, correlated factors. But ‘An Updated and Expanded Model of Affective Polarization’ explicitly calls their instrument a measure of affective polarization, not a sectarianism measure, because it modifies the sectarianism model on which it draws. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the Campos and Federico (2026) data, there are (small) partisan differences such that Democrats score higher on their aversion scale, which asked about friendship/liking.

    “Finally, in the Campos and Federico (2026) data, there are (small) partisan differences such that Democrats score higher on their aversion scale, which asked about friendship/liking (and no or very slight differences on their othering and moralization scales).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Campos and Federico (2026)

    The Further Item Reduction section reports higher aversion scores among Democrats in all four samples, no significant party difference in othering, and a slight moralization difference only in Study 2. The final scale’s aversion items ask about friendship and liking. Calling the aversion differences uniformly small is not supported: the reported effects range from d = 0.29 to d = 0.79. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Moralization was in some cases associated with stronger support for democratic principles.

    “Surprisingly, moralization was in some cases associated with stronger support for democratic principles.”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Campos and Federico (2026)

  • Campos and Federico (2026) found a correlation between sectarianism and anti-democratic attitudes, with aversion driving the relationship.

    “And, Campos and Federico (2026) similarly found a correlation between sectarianism and anti-democratic attitudes, with aversion being the element of sectarianism driving the relationship.”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Campos and Federico (2026)

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. Yale University Press.
  2. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Steven W. Webster. 2016. "The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century." Electoral Studies 41:12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001. . 2018. "Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans." Political Psychology 39 (S1): 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12479. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bogardus, Emory S. 1947. "Measurement of personal-group relations." Sociometry 10:306- 311. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785570. · DOI
  4. Broockman, David E., Joshua L. Kalla, and Sean J. Westwood. 2023. "Does Affective Po- larization Undermine Democratic Norms or Accountability? Maybe Not." American Journal of Political Science 67 (3): 808-828. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12719. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brown, Timothy A. 2006. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
  6. Converse, Philip E. 1964. "The nature of belief systems in mass publics." Critical Review 18 (1): 1-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810608443650. · DOI
  7. Delton, Andrew W., Peter DeScioli, and Timothy J. Ryan. 2020. "Moral Obstinacy in Po- litical Negotiations." Political Psychology 41 (1): 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops. 12612. · DOI
  8. Dias, Nicholas, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2022. "The Nature of Affective Polarization: Disen- tangling Policy Disagreement from Partisan Identity." American Journal of Political Science 66 (3): 775-790. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dias, Nicholas C., Jake Pearl, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2024. "American Partisans Vastly Un- derestimate the Diversity of Other Partisans' Attitudes," https://doi.org/10.31219/osf. io/spm5x. · DOI
  10. Druckman, James N, and Matthew S Levendusky. 2019. "What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?" Public Opinion Quarterly 83 (1): 114-122. https: //doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Embretson, Susan E., and Steven P. Reise. 2013. Item Response Theory. Psychology Press.
  12. Federico, Christopher M. 2021. "When do psychological differences predict political dif- ferences?: Engagement and the psychological bases of political polarization." In The Psychology of Political Polarization, 17-37. Routledge.
  13. Finkel, Eli J., Alexander P. Landry, Rick H. Hoyle, James N. Druckman, and Jay J. Van Bavel. 2024. "Partisan Antipathy and the Erosion of Democratic Norms," https://doi. org/10.31234/osf.io/ahgy6. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. "Political Polarization in the American Public." Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 563-588. Accessed February 16, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Grumbach, Jacob. 2022. Laboratories Against Democracy: How National Parties Trans- formed State Politics. Princeton University Press.
  16. Hanson, Brittany E., Daniel C. Wisneski, and G. Scott Morgan. 2022. "The Consequences of Moral Conviction in Politics." In The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology, 298-310. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108779104.021. · DOI
  17. Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization." American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619-631. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055 401003045. · DOI
  18. Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe. 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity." American Political Science Re- view 109 (1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Iyengar, Shanto, and Masha Krupenkin. 2018. "The Strengthening of Partisan Affect." Po- litical Psychology 39 (S1): 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12487. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Kalmoe, Nathan P. 2020. "Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology." Political Psychology 41 (4): 771-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12650. · DOI
  21. Kinder, Donald R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideolog- ical Innocence in the American Public. Chicago Studies in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.
  22. Kingzette, Jon. 2021. "Who Do You Loathe? Feelings toward Politicians vs. Ordinary People in the Opposing Party." Journal of Experimental Political Science 8 (1): 75-84. https: //doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020. · DOI
  23. Kingzette, Jon, James N Druckman, Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, Matthew Levendusky, and John Barry Ryan. 2021. "How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Demo- cratic Norms." Public Opinion Quarterly 85 (2): 663-677. https://doi.org/10.1093/ poq/nfab029. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Klar, Samara, Yanna Krupnikov, and John Barry Ryan. 2018. "Affective Polarization or Par- tisan Disdain?: Untangling a Dislike for the Opposing Party from a Dislike of Partisan- ship." Public Opinion Quarterly 82 (2): 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy014. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Krupnikov, Yanna, and John Barry Ryan. 2022. The Other Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108923323. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lee, Amber Hye-Yon. 2022. "Social Trust in Polarized Times: How Perceptions of Political Polarization Affect Americans' Trust in Each Other." Political Behavior 44 (3): 1533- 1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09787-1. · DOI
  27. Lee, Amber Hye-Yon, Yphtach Lelkes, Carlee B. Hawkins, and Alexander G. Theodoridis. 2022. "Negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship." Nature Human Behaviour 6 (7): 951-963. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01348-0. · DOI
  28. Lee, Sangwon, Jihyang Choi, and Chloe Ahn. 2023. "Hate prompts participation: Examining the dynamic relationship between affective polarization and political participation." New Media and Society, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231177301. · DOI
  29. Levendusky, Matthew. 2023. Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide. Chicago Studies in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.
  30. Levendusky, Matthew, and Neil Malhotra. 2016a. "Does Media Coverage of Partisan Po- larization Affect Political Attitudes?" Political Communication 33 (2): 283-301. https: //doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Levendusky, Matthew S. 2018. "Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?" Publisher: The University of Chicago Press, The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1086/693987. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lim, Sangdon, and Seungmin Jahng. 2019. "Determining the number of factors using parallel analysis and its recent variants." Psychological Methods 24 (4): 452-467. https://doi. org/10.1037/met0000230. · DOI
  33. Luttig, Matthew D. 2017. "Authoritarianism and Affective Polarization: A New View on the Origins of Partisan Extremism." Public Opinion Quarterly 81 (4): 866-895. https: //doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx023. . 2018. "The "Prejudiced Personality" and the Origins of Partisan Strength, Affective Polarization, and Partisan Sorting." Political Psychology 39 (S1): 239-256. https://doi. org/10.1111/pops.12484. · DOI
  34. McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.
  35. Mernyk, Joseph S., Sophia L. Pink, James N. Druckman, and Robb Willer. 2022. "Cor- recting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (16). https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2116851119. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Moore-Berg, Samantha L., Lee-Or Ankori-Karlinsky, Boaz Hameiri, and Emile Bruneau. 2020. "Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (26): 14864- 14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Neuliep, James W., and James C. McCroskey. 1997. "The development of a U.S. and gener- alized ethnocentrism scale." Communication Research Reports 14 (4): 385-398. https: //doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388682. · DOI
  38. Orr, Lilla V., and Gregory A. Huber. 2020. "The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States." American Journal of Political Science 64 (3): 569-586. https: //doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12498. · DOI
  39. Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1984. "The Polarization of American Politics." The Journal of Politics 46 (4): 1061-1079. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131242. · DOI
  40. Sides, John, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck. 2022. The Bitter End: The 2020 Pres- idential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Princeton University Press.
  41. Skitka, Linda J., and Christopher W. Bauman. 2008. "Moral Conviction and Political En- gagement." Political Psychology 29 (1): 29-54. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1111 / j . 1467 - 9221.2007.00611.x. · DOI
  42. Skitka, Linda J., Christopher W. Bauman, and Edward G. Sargis. 2005. "Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (6): 895-917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Skitka, Linda J., Brittany E. Hanson, G. Scott Morgan, and Daniel C. Wisneski. 2021. "The Psychology of Moral Conviction." Annual Review of Psychology 72 (1): 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612. · DOI
  44. Skitka, Linda J., Brittany E. Hanson, and Daniel C. Wisneski. 2017. "Utopian Hopes or Dystopian Fears? Exploring the Motivational Underpinnings of Moralized Political En- gagement." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (2): 177-190. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167216678858. · DOI
  45. Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Flament. 1971. "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour." European Journal of Social Psychology 1 (2): 149-178. https: //doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1979. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." In Organizational Identity: A Reader, edited by Mary Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz, 56- 65. Oxford University Press.
  47. Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1986. "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior." In Political Psychology, 276-293. Psychology Press.
  48. Vandenberg, Robert J., and Charles E. Lance. 2000. "A review and synthesis of the mea- surement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for orga- nizational research." Organizational Research Methods 3 (1): 4-69. https://doi.org/10. 1177/109442810031002. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Voelkel, Jan G., James Chu, Michael N. Stagnaro, Joseph S. Mernyk, Chrystal Redekopp, Sophia L. Pink, James N. Druckman, David G. Rand, and Robb Willer. 2023. "In- terventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes." Nature Human Behaviour 7 (1): 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562- 022-01466-9. · DOI
  50. Westwood, Sean J., Justin Grimmer, Matthew Tyler, and Clayton Nall. 2022a. "Current research overstates American support for political violence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (12). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116870119. . 2022b. "Reply to Kalmoe and Mason: The pitfalls of using surveys to measure low- prevalence attitudes and behavior." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (32). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207584119. · DOI
  51. Zaal, Maarten P., Rim Saab, Kerry O'Brien, Carla Jeffries, Manuela Barreto, and Colette van Laar. 2017. "You're either with us or against us! Moral conviction determines how the politicized distinguish friend from foe." Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 20 (4): 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215615682. · DOI
  52. Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck. 1992. "Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit." Sociological Methods & Research 21 (2): 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192 021002005. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Embretson, Susan E., and Steven P. Reise. 2013. Item Response Theory. Psychology Press.
  54. Finkel, Eli, Alexander Landry, Rick H. Hoyle, James Druckman, and Jay J. Van Bavel. 2024. "Partisan Antipathy and the Erosion of Democratic Norms," https://doi.org/10.31234/ osf.io/ahgy6. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Finkel, Eli J., Christopher A. Bail, Mina Cikara, Peter H. Ditto, Shanto Iyengar, Samara Klar, Lilliana Mason, et al. 2020. "Political sectarianism in America." Science 370 (6516): 533-536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Heinrich, Manuel, Christian Geiser, Pavle Zagorscak, G. Leonard Burns, Johannes Bohn, Stephen P. Becker, Michael Eid, Theodore P. Beauchaine, and Christine Knaevelsrud. 2023. "On the Meaning of the "P Factor" in Symmetrical Bifactor Models of Psy- chopathology: Recommendations for Future Research From the Bifactor-(S -1) Perspec- tive." Assessment 30 (3): 487-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211060298. · DOI
  57. McGraw, Kenneth O., and S. P. Wong. 1996. "Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients." Psychological Methods 1 (1): 30-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 1082-989X.1.1.30. Reise, Steven P., Maxwell Mansolf, and Mark G. Haviland. 2023. "Bifactor measurement models." Handbook of structural equation modeling, 329-348. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Samejima, Fumiko. 1969. "Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores." Psychometrika Monograph Supplement 34 (4): 100-100.
  59. Shrout, Patrick E., and Joseph L. Fleiss. 1979. "Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability." Psychological bulletin 86 (2): 420-428.
  60. Skitka, Linda J., Brittany E. Hanson, G. Scott Morgan, and Daniel C. Wisneski. 2021. "The Psychology of Moral Conviction." Annual Review of Psychology 72 (1): 347-366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612. · DOI
  61. Vandenberg, Robert J., and Charles E. Lance. 2000. "A review and synthesis of the mea- surement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for orga- nizational research." Organizational Research Methods 3 (1): 4-69. https://doi.org/10. 1177/109442810031002. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Westwood, Sean J., Justin Grimmer, Matthew Tyler, and Clayton Nall. 2022. "Current research overstates American support for political violence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (12). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116870119. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CAMPOS, N., & FEDERICO, C.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
  • CAMPOS, NICOLAS
  • FEDERICO, CHRISTOPHER
ORCID
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2025-05-15
Volume
120
Issue
1
Pages
160-178
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s0003055425000255
OpenAlex
W4410412249
Cited by
18
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 1
FWCI
66.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Psi Chi
  • University of Minnesota
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Cambridge
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 › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
affective polarization, sectarian politics, othering, aversion, moralization, political identity, political violence, partisanship, scale development, measurement validity

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