Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?
Abstract
In recent years, Americans have become more affectively polarized: that is, ordinary Democrats and Republicans increasingly dislike and distrust members of the opposing party. Such polarization is normatively troubling, as it exacerbates gridlock and dissensus in Washington. Given these negative consequences, I investigate whether it is possible to ameliorate this partisan discord. Building on the Common Ingroup Identity Model from social psychology, I show that when subjects’ sense of American national identity is heightened, they come to see members of the opposing party as fellow Americans rather than rival partisans. As a result, they like the opposing party more, thereby reducing affective polarization. Using several original experiments, as well as a natural experiment surrounding the July 4th holiday and the 2008 summer Olympics, I find strong support for my argument. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for efforts to reduce polarization more generally.
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?
There is an increasing tendency that people, especially partisans, defend the in-group and dislike the out-group.
“Recent work on public opinion suggests that there is an increasing tendency that people, especially partisans, defend the in-group and dislike the out-group (Iyengar et al., 2012;Levendusky, 2018).”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Levendusky, 2018
Selective exposure to like-minded information would likely result in affective polarization, a process in which individuals develop diverging evaluations of attitude objects in a partisan context.
“Second, selective exposure to like-minded information would also likely result in affective polarizationa process of opinion formation in which individuals develop diverging evaluations of attitude objects (e.g., in-group vs. out-group candidates) in a partisan context (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016;Iyengar et al., 2012;Levendusky, 2018).”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Levendusky, 2018
Theories suggest that external threats can unify domestic rivals who come together either to jointly respond or due to heightened national identity.
“Theories suggest that external threats can unify domestic rivals who come together either to jointly respond or due to heightened national identity (e.g., Levendusky, 2018).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Levendusky, 2018
Emphasizing a superordinate national identity can reduce out-group animus as well as affective and ideological polarization.
“emphasizing a superordinate national identity can reduce out-group animus as well as affective and ideological polarization281–283, consistent with social identity theory90,92,139.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [281]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 492
- Authors
- Levendusky, M. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Levendusky, Matthew S.
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-70
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W2767059180
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 138.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- affective polarization, American identity, common ingroup identity model, partisanship, intergroup relations
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
