Political polarization projection: Social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes.
Abstract
What influences perceptions of political polarization? The authors examine the polarization of people's own political attitudes as a source of perceived polarization: Individuals with more extreme partisan attitudes perceive greater polarization than individuals with less extreme partisan attitudes. This "polarization projection" was demonstrated in 3 studies in which people estimated the distribution of others' political attitudes: one study with a nationally representative sample concerning the 2008 presidential election, and 2 studies concerning university students evaluating a policy regarding scarce resource allocation. These studies demonstrate that polarization projection occurs simultaneously with and independently of simple projection, the tendency to assume that others share one's partisan political attitudes. Polarization projection may occur partly because people assume that others engage in similar attitudinal processes as the self, such as extensive thought and emotional arousal. The projection of various attitudinal processes was demonstrated in a study concerning health care reform policies. Further supporting this explanation, polarization projection increased when people introspected about their own attitudinal processes, which increased the accessibility of those processes. Implications for perceptions of partisanship, social judgment, and civic behavior are discussed.
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?
'Us versus them' dynamics can result in stereotyping and false or exaggerated beliefs about the out-group.
“As noted above, ‘us versus them’ dynamics can result in stereotyping and false or exaggerated beliefs about the out-group132,146–149.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [146]
Cites
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241 · see citing works
Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
Schwarz, N. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.2.93 · Cited by 2,846 · see citing works
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 · Cited by 1,845 · cited 1× · see citing works
“And we tested whether partisan identification was independently associated with perceived polarization, consistent with other research (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Ellemers et al., 2002; Huber et al., 2012; Jetten et al., 2004; Sherman et al., 2009; Westfall et al., 2012).”
ResultSubjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60333-0 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Social identification effects in group polarization.
Mackie, D. M. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.720 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Misperceptions in Intergroup Conflict: Disagreeing About What We Disagree About
Chambers, J. R., Baron, R. S., & Inman, M. L. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01662.x · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472 · see citing works
Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding
Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612464058 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
(Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public
Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfv045 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Cognitive–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
“It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks
Cowan, S. K., & Baldassarri, D. (2018) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Understanding and combating misperceived polarization
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0143 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are Pulling Americans Apart
Yudkin, D. A., Hawkins, S., & Dixon, T. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/r3h5q · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Forecasting tournaments, epistemic humility and attitude depolarization
Mellers, B., Tetlock, P., & Arkes, H. R. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.021 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Culture wars, perception gap and affective polarization: an approach from the Spanish case
Rojo Martínez, J. M., Crespo Martínez, I., & Mora Rodríguez, A. (2023) · OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.14198/obets.21976 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Van Boven, L., Judd, C. M., & Sherman, D. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-100
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W3124466420
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 16.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0552120; 1049125)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- social projection, self-reflection, emotional arousal, scarce resource allocation, social judgment, civic behavior, 2008 presidential election
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Politics, Projection, Social Perception
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
