CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluencePolitical Theory and Democracy

The emergence and perils of polarization

Open access
Baldassarri, Delia, Page, Scott E.·2021·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.2116863118PMC PMC8685894
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We provide commentaries on the papers included in the Dynamics of Political Polarization Special Feature. Baldassarri reads the contribution of the papers in light of the theoretical distinction between ideological partisanship, which is generally rooted in sociodemographic and political cleavages, and affective partisanship, which is, instead, mostly fueled by emotional attachment and repulsion, rather than ideology and material interests. The latter, she argues, is likely to lead to a runaway process and threaten the pluralistic bases of contemporary democracy. Page sees the contribution of the many distinct models in the ensemble as potentially contributing more than the parts. Individual papers identify distinct causes of polarization as well as potential solutions. Viewed collectively, the papers suggest that the multiple causes of polarization may self-reinforce, which suggests that successful interventions would require a variety of efforts. Understanding how to construct such interventions may require larger models with greater realism.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.2116863118

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • If political considerations become the primary factor driving social relationships, people will become much more isolated and polarized along ideological lines.

    “If political considerations become the primary factor driving social relationships, however, people will become much more isolated and polarized along ideological lines59.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [59]

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: 29

  1. [1]DiMaggio P., Evans J., Bryson B., Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? Am. J. Sociol. 102, 690–755 (1996). [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Fiorina M. P., Abrams S. J., Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 563–588 (2008). [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Levendusky M., The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (University of Chicago Press, 2009). [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Baldassarri D., Gelman A., Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. AJS 114, 408–446 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Webster S. W., Abramowitz A. I., The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. Am. Polit. Res. 45, 621–647 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  6. [10]Orr L. V., Huber G. A., The policy basis of measured partisan animosity in the United States. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 64, 569–586 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  7. [11]Dias N., Lelkes Y., The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. Am. J. Pol. Sci., 10.1111/ajps.12628 (2021). [DOI] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  8. [12]Park B., How are we apart? Continuity and change in the structure of ideological disagreement in the American public, 1980–2012. Soc. Forces 96, 1757–1784 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  9. [14]Baldassarri D., Goldberg A., Neither ideologues nor agnostics: Alternative voters’ belief system in an age of partisan politics. AJS 120, 45–95 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [15]Blau P., Parameters of social structure. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 615–635 (1974). [Google Scholar]
  11. [16]Baldassarri D., Abascal M., Diversity and prosocial behavior. Science 369, 1183–1187 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [17]Stewart A. J., Plotkin J. B., McCarty N., Inequality, identity, and partisanship: How redistribution can stem the tide of mass polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102140118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [18]Kawakatsu M., Lelkes Y., Levin S. A., Tarnita C. E., Interindividual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison’s cure for “mischiefs of faction.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102148118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [19]Axelrod R., Daymude J. J., Forrest S., Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102139118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. [20]Baldassarri D., Bearman P., Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Soc. Rev., 72, 784–811 (2007). [Google Scholar]
  16. [21]Macy M. W., Ma M., Tabin D. R., Gao J., Szymanski B. K., Polarization and tipping points. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102144118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [22]Leonard N. E., Lipsitz K., Bizyaeva A., Franci A., Lelkes Y., The nonlinear feedback dynamics of asymmetric political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102149118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. [23]Santos F. P., Lelkes Y., Levin S. A., Link recommendation algorithms and dynamics of polarization in online social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102141118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [24]Tokita C. K., Guess A. M., Tarnita C. E., Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102147118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. [25]Chu O. J., Donges J. F., Robertson G. B., Pop-Eleches G., The microdynamics of spatial polarization: A model and an application to survey data from Ukraine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2104194118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. [26]Vasconcelos V. V., et al., Segregation and clustering of preferences erode socially beneficial coordination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102153118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. [27]Perrings C., Hechter M., Mamada R., National polarization and international agreements. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2102145118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. [29]Page S. E., Lamberson P. J., Tipping points. Quart. J. Polit. Sci. 7, 175–208 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  24. [30]Geanakoplos J., et al., Getting at systemic risk via an agent-based model of the housing market. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 53–58 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  25. [31]Golub B., Jackson M. O., How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics. Q. J. Econ. 127, 1287–1338 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  26. [32]Page S. E., The Model Thinker (Basic, 2018). [Google Scholar]
  27. [33]Jen E., Robust Design: A Repertoire of Biological, Ecological, and Engineering Case Studies (Santa Fe Institute Studies on the Sciences of Complexity, Oxford University Press, 2005). [Google Scholar]
  28. [34]Gehl K., Porter M., The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy (Harvard Business Review Press, 2020). [Google Scholar]
  29. [35]Hirschman A., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Harvard University Press, 1970). [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baldassarri, D., & Page, S. E.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Santa Fe Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Baldassarri, Delia
  • Page, Scott E.
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2021-12-06
Volume
118
Issue
50
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.2116863118
PMC
PMC8685894
OpenAlex
W4200627157
Cited by
50
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
21.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 183 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
political polarization, ideological partisanship, pluralist democracy, self-reinforcing dynamics

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