CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 311Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

The Limits of Partisan Prejudice

Open access
Lelkes, Yphtach, Westwood, Sean J.·2017·The Journal of Politics
DOI 10.1086/688223
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Partisanship increasingly factors into the behavior of Americans in both political and nonpolitical situations, yet the bounds of partisan prejudice are largely unknown. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the limits of partisan prejudice using a series of five studies situated within a typology of prejudice. We find that partisan prejudice predicts suppression of hostile rhetoric toward one’s own party, avoidance of members of the opposition, and a desire for preferential treatment for one’s own party. While these behaviors may cause incidental or indirect harm to the opposition, we find that even the most affectively polarized—those with the strongest disdain for the opposition—are no more likely to intentionally harm the opposition than those with minimal levels 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 · 10.1086/688223

Cites

82 of 82 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?

  • There is still debate about the extent to which partisan belief and behavior is driven by in-group favoritism versus out-group derogation.

    “there is still debate about the extent to which partisan belief and behavior is driven by in-group favoritism versus out-group derogation (49).”

    From Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Political sectarianism better captures strong feelings that lead partisans to sacrifice democratic norms, while affective polarization captures milder forms of affect influencing social relationships.

    “The former does a better job enveloping strong feelings that lead partisans to sacrifice democratic norms such as checks and balances or obeying unfavorable court rulings.11 The latter captures milder forms of affect that influence social relationships, such as willingness to work with members of the other party (e.g., Broockman et al., 2023;Lelkes & Westwood, 2017) and cue-taking in terms of”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Lelkes & Westwood, 2017

  • In some situations, partisan bias is prompted more by in-group love.

    “However, there is also evidence that in some situations, partisan bias is prompted more by in-group love (Lelkes & Westwood 2017).”

    From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Lelkes & Westwood 2017

  • Some studies indicate a negative relationship between affective polarization and support for democratic norms.

    “Research to date paints a confusing picture, with some studies indicating a negative relationship between affective polarization and support for democratic norms302,303, and others finding no connection between the two13,58.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [302]

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: 11

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. "Ideological Realign- ment in the US Elections." Journal of Politics 60 (3): 634-52.
  2. Abramowitz, Alan, and Kyle L. Saunders. 2005. "Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America." The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 3 (2): 1-22.
  3. Allport, Gordon G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Perseus Books. Associated Press. 2004. "Three Arrested in Gop Headquarters Vandalism," November 6.
  4. Fiorina, Morris P. 2013. "If I Could Hold a Seminar for Political Journalists." Forum 10 (4): 2-10.
  5. Fiorina, Morris P., and Matthew S. Levendusky. 2006. "Disconnected: The Political Class versus the People." In Pietro Nivola and David Brady, eds., Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences of America's Polarized Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 49-71.
  6. Green, Donald P., and Rachel L. Seher. 2003. "What Role Does Prejudice Play in Ethnic Conflict?" Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1): 509-31.
  7. Jacobson, Gary C., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 2006. "Comment on Dis- connected: The Political Class versus the People." In Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, eds., Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 85-94.
  8. Klofstad, Casey A., Rose McDermott, and Peter K. Hatemi. 2012. "The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives." Political Behavior 35 (3): 1-20.
  9. Lelkes, Yphtach, Gaurav Sood, and Shanto Iyengar. Forthcoming. "The Hostile Audience: Selective Exposure to Partisan Sources and Affective Polarization." American Journal of Political Science.
  10. Otten, Sabine, and Dirk Wentura. 1999. "About the Impact of Automaticity in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Evidence from Affective Priming Tasks." European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (8): 1049-71.
  11. Wolfe, Alan. 1998. One Nation, after All: What Middle Class Americans Really Think about God, Country, Family, Racism, Welfare, Immigra- tion, Homosexuality, Work, the Right, the Left, and Each Other. New York: Viking Penguin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
ORCID
Westwood, Sean J.
Venue
The Journal of Politics
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
2017-04
Volume
79
Issue
2
Pages
485-501
ISSN
  • 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2508
DOI
10.1086/688223
OpenAlex
W2561427996
Cited by
311
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
FWCI
42.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
affective polarization, preferential treatment

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