The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats
Abstract
The Democratic Party is a coalition of social groups that act as discrete voting blocs for candidates, constituencies for group leaders, and demanders of particular policy commitments. Since the 1960s, the evolution in the relative internal influence of Democratic Party constituencies has reduced the size of the party’s conservative wing and expanded its policy agenda—but no organized liberal movement has emerged to dominate its internal organization or succeed in shifting its policies toward leftist positions. The Republican Party, in contrast, serves as the vehicle of a conservative ideological movement that has succeeded in fusing its intellectual strands, marketing its broad critiques of government, building a supportive organizational network, and moving the party toward the policy commitments of its right wing. This underlying party asymmetry produces distinct Democratic and Republican approaches to debating public issues, campaigning for votes, and pursuing policy change in government. The concurrent operational liberalism and symbolic conservatism of the American public allows each party to maintain its unique character while effectively competing for broader popular support.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Issue or ideological polarization implies either symmetric polarization, in which two groups move in opposite, more extreme directions, or asymmetric polarization, in which one group becomes more extreme than the other.
“This implies either that two groups — such as liberals and conservatives or leftists and rightists — are moving in opposite, more extreme directions (symmetric polarization) or that one group is becoming more extreme than the other (asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73–75).”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [74]
In the USA, in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise are more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification.
“in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise seem to be more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification in the USA than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification10,73–75.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [74]
Liberals and conservatives differ in terms of system-justifying versus system-challenging motives, which might help to explain asymmetric polarization.
“However, they differ in terms of system-justifying (versus system-challenging) motives, which might help to explain asymmetric polarization10,34,47,48,73,74.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [74]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1804840115 · Cited by 1,863
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183
Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic
Gadarian, S. K., Goodman, S. W., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249596 · Cited by 744
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481
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
All the news That’s fit to click: the economics of clickbait media
Munger, K. (2020) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1687626 · Cited by 175
Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want from Political Representation
Costa, M. (2021) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12571 · Cited by 118
Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121
An Asymmetrical “President-in-Power” Effect
MORISI, D., JOST, J. T., & SINGH, V. (2019) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055418000850 · Cited by 73
A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy
Wang, S. S.-H., Cervas, J., Grofman, B., & Lipsitz, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2102154118 · Cited by 16
The Political Dynamics of Partisan Polarization
Schmidt, E. R., Carmines, E. G., & Sniderman, P. M. (2025) · doi:10.1017/9781009472760 · Cited by 10
Suk, J., McLeod, D. M., & Shah, D. V. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09801-6 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2016-10-27
- OpenAlex
- W4231313362
- Cited by
- 535
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 39.86
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- Democratic Party, Republican Party, party coalitions, voting blocs, party ideology, conservative movement, liberal movement, party organization, political campaigns, policy change, American politics
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
