CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Social and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Asymmetric polarization: The perception that republicans pose harm to disadvantaged groups drives democrats' greater dislike of republicans in social contexts

Open access
Nair, Krishnan, Anderson, Rajen A., Spelman, Trevor, Mosleh, Mohsen, Kouchaki, Maryam·2026·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/pspi0000495
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

= 2,443) operationalizing partisan dislike in various ways (e.g., blocking on social media, rating the likability of various targets, and evaluating hiring suitability)-that Democrats (i.e., liberals) dislike Republicans (i.e., conservatives) more than vice versa. We provide a potential explanation for this phenomenon by extending the worldview conflict perspective to account for asymmetries in how moralized specific values are among two conflicting groups at a given point in time. Specifically, we theorize that in light of recent social trends in the modern-day United States, the moralized belief that counter-partisans pose harm to disadvantaged groups, particularly racial/ethnic minorities, has become an asymmetric contributor to partisan dislike among Democrats. We found support for our theory across both measurement-of-mediation and experimental-mediation approaches and in both field experimental and survey data. Overall, this work advances research on ideology and outgroup hostility and extends the worldview conflict perspective to better explain partisan dislike. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/pspi0000495

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.

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?

  • Democrats might exhibit higher levels of social distance because they perceive many Republicans come from historically higher status groups (e.g., white men) that threaten historically disadvantaged groups (e.g., minorities).

    “We (implicitly) pointed to this in our earlier discussion of social distancing: Democrats might exhibit higher levels of social distance (e.g., have fewer friends from the other party) because they perceive many Republicans come from historically higher status groups (e.g., white men) that threaten historically disadvantaged groups (e.g., minorities) (Nair et al., 2026).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Nair et al., 2026

    The Discussion reports greater social-context dislike of Republicans among Democrats and links it to Democrats’ perception that Republicans may harm disadvantaged people, particularly ethnic and racial minorities. The cited paper does not establish the further explanation that Democrats see many Republicans as members of historically higher-status groups, such as white men. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998). Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate. The Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634-652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647642 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Adams, J., De Vries, C. E., & Leiter, D. (2012). Subconstituency reactions to elite depolarization in the Netherlands: An analysis of the Dutch public's policy beliefs and partisan loyalties, 1986-98. British Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000214 · DOI
  3. Badaan, V., Hoffarth, M., Roper, C., Parker, T., & Jost, J. T. (2023). Ideological asymmetries in online hostility, intimidation, obscenity, and prejudice. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 22345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46574-2 · DOI
  4. Badaan, V., & Jost, J. T. (2020). Conceptual, empirical, and practical problems with the claim that intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination are equivalent on the political left and right. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.007 · DOI
  5. Bonevski, B., Randell, M., Paul, C., Chapman, K., Twyman, L., Bryant, J., Brozek, I., & Hughes, C. (2014). Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-42 · DOI
  6. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization (w26669; p. w26669). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26669 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brandt, M. J., & Crawford, J. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1-66). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002 · DOI
  8. Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis: Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413510932 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Casey, J. P., Vanman, E. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2023). Empathic Conservatives and Moralizing Liberals: Political Intergroup Empathy Varies by Political Ideology and Is Explained by Moral Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672231198001. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231198001 · DOI
  10. Chambers, J. R., Schlenker, B. R., & Collisson, B. (2013). Ideology and Prejudice: The Role of Value Conflicts. Psychological Science, 24(2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612447820 · DOI
  11. Chen, M. K., & Rohla, R. (2018). The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science, 360(6392), 1020-1024. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1433 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Clark, W. A. V., & Fossett, M. (2008). Understanding the social context of the Schelling segregation model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(11), 4109- 4114. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708155105 · DOI
  13. Crawford, J. T., Brandt, M. J., Inbar, Y., Chambers, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 383-412. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000074 · DOI
  14. Dang, C. T., & Joshi, A. (2022). On the Plurality and Politics of Ally Work: Liberalism and Self, Relational, and Organizational Ally Work. Academy of Management Journal, amj.2021.0999. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.0999 · DOI
  15. Druckman, J. N., & Levendusky, M. S. (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
  16. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21(2), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.614 · DOI
  17. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A Dual-Process Motivational Model of Ideology, Politics, and Prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540 · DOI
  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., Skitka, L. J., Tucker, J. A., Van Bavel, J. J., Wang, C. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533-536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ganzach, Y., & Schul, Y. (2021). Partisan ideological attitudes: Liberals are tolerant; the intelligent are intolerant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1551- 1566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000324 · DOI
  21. Garrett, K. N., & Bankert, A. (2020). The Moral Roots of Partisan Division: How Moral Conviction Heightens Affective Polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700059X · DOI
  22. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gray, K., DiMaggio, N., Schein, C., & Kachanoff, F. (2023). The Problem of Purity in Moral Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(3), 272-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221124741 · DOI
  24. Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and Below Left-Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028573 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hasson, Y., Tamir, M., Brahms, K. S., Cohrs, J. C., & Halperin, E. (2018). Are Liberals and Conservatives Equally Motivated to Feel Empathy Toward Others? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(10), 1449-1459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218769867 · DOI
  26. Higgins, M. J., Sävje, F., & Sekhon, J. S. (2016). Improving massive experiments with threshold blocking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7369-7376. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510504113 · DOI
  27. Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340-1343. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251560 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hohm, I., O'Shea, B. A., & Schaller, M. (2024). Do moral values change with the seasons? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(33), e2313428121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2313428121 · DOI
  29. Hout, M., & Maggio, C. (2021). Immigration, Race & Political Polarization. Daedalus, 150(2), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01845 · DOI
  30. Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117- 073034 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690-707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Jacoby, W. G. (2014). Is There a Culture War? Conflicting Value Structures in American Public Opinion. American Political Science Review, 108(4), 754-771. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000380 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407 · DOI
  36. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307-337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), e2008389118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008389118 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Lambert, A. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (1997). Perceptions of Disadvantage Versus Conventionality: Political Values and Attitudes Toward the Elderly Versus Blacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 469-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297235003 · DOI
  40. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
  41. Lucas, B. J., & Kteily, N. S. (2018). (Anti-)egalitarianism differentially predicts empathy for members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(5), 665-692. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000112 · DOI
  42. Martel, C., Mosleh, M., Yang, Q., Zaman, T., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Blocking of counter- partisan accounts drives political assortment on Twitter. PNAS Nexus, pgae161. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae161 · DOI
  43. McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., & Levendusky, M. (2018). The Economic Consequences of Partisanship in a Polarized Era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12330 · DOI · Paper page
  44. McElroy, J. C., Summers, J. K., & Moore, K. (2014). The effect of facial piercing on perceptions of job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(1), 26- 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.05.003 · DOI
  45. Miller, J. G., Bersoff, D. M., & Harwood, R. L. (1990). Perceptions of social responsibilities in India and in the United States: Moral imperatives or personal decisions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.58.1.33 · DOI
  46. Mooijman, M., Hoover, J., Lin, Y., Ji, H., & Dehghani, M. (2018). Moralization in social networks and the emergence of violence during protests. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(6), 389-396. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0353-0 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Mosleh, M., Martel, C., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Shared partisanship dramatically increases social tie formation in a Twitter field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(7), e2022761118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022761118 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Field Experiments on Social Media. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 69-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211054761 · DOI
  49. Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.010 · DOI
  50. Nair, K., Mosleh, M., & Kouchaki, M. (2024). Racial Minorities Face Discrimination From Across the Political Spectrum When Seeking to Form Ties on Social Media: Evidence From a Field Experiment. Psychological Science, 35(11), 1278-1286. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241274738 National Exit Polls: How Different Groups Voted. (2020, November 3). The New York Times. · DOI
  51. Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. A., & Wentworth, P. A. (1997). Generativity and authoritarianism: Implications for personality, political involvement, and parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1202-1216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1202 · DOI
  52. Pew Research Center. (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public. https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ Pew Research Center. (2016a). On Views of Race and Inequality, Blacks and Whites Are Worlds Apart. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and- inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/
  53. Pew Research Center. (2016b). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016. http://www.people- press.org/2016/06/22/1-feelings-about-partisans-and-the-parties/
  54. Pirlott, A. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021867 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Reyna, C., Henry, P. J., Korfmacher, W., & Tucker, A. (2006). Examining the principles in principled conservatism: The role of responsibility stereotypes as cues for deservingness in racial policy decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.109 · DOI
  57. Roth, P. L., Thatcher, J. B., Bobko, P., Matthews, K. D., Ellingson, J. E., & Goldberg, C. B. (2020). Political affiliation and employment screening decisions: The role of similarity and identification processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000422 · DOI
  58. Roussos, G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2018). Hate Speech Is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Influence of Racial Attitudes and Freedom of Speech Beliefs on Perceptions of Racially Motivated Threats of Violence. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 176-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617748728 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2015). The Unifying Moral Dyad: Liberals and Conservatives Share the Same Harm-Based Moral Template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147-1163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215591501 · DOI
  60. Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288 · DOI
  61. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation †. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794 · DOI
  62. Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and constuct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 805-815. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805 · DOI
  63. Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x · DOI · Paper page
  64. Skitka, L. J., & Bauman, C. W. (2008). Moral Conviction and Political Engagement. Political Psychology, 29(1), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00611.x · DOI
  65. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (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
  66. Skitka, L. J., & Morgan, G. S. (2014). The Social and Political Implications of Moral Conviction. Political Psychology, 35(S1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12166 · DOI
  67. Skitka, L. J., Washburn, A. N., & Carsel, T. S. (2015). The psychological foundations and consequences of moral conviction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 41-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.025 · DOI
  68. Wang, Z., Hale, S., Adelani, D. I., Grabowicz, P., Hartman, T., Flöck, F., & Jurgens, D. (2019). Demographic Inference and Representative Population Estimates from Multilingual Social Media Data. The World Wide Web Conference, 2056-2067. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313684 · DOI
  69. Waytz, A., Iyer, R., Young, L., Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2019). Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nature Communications, 10(1), 4389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0 · DOI
  70. Waytz, A., Young, L. L., & Ginges, J. (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. Hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(44), 15687. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414146111 · DOI
  71. Willroth, E. C., & Atherton, O. E. (2024). Best Laid Plans: A Guide to Reporting Preregistration Deviations. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(1), 25152459231213802. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231213802 · DOI
  72. Zhang, J. (2004). A dynamic model of residential segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 28(3), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222500490480202 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nair, K., Anderson, R. A., Spelman, T., Mosleh, M., & Kouchaki, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2026-03
Volume
130
Issue
3
Pages
529-549
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/pspi0000495
OpenAlex
W4410093576
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6
FWCI
26.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
asymmetric polarization, racial and ethnic minorities, outgroup hostility, ideology, social media blocking
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Group Processes, Hostility, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Politics, Social Perception, Young Adult, Social Media

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