How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms
Abstract
Does affective polarization—the tendency to view opposing partisans negatively and co-partisans positively—undermine support for democratic norms? We argue that it does, through two mechanisms. First, in an age of elite polarization, norms have been politicized. This leads affectively polarized partisans to oppose particular constitutional protections when their party is in power but support them when their party is out of power, via a cue-taking mechanism. Second, affective polarization may generate biases that motivate voters to restrict the other party’s rights. Using nationally representative surveys, we find strong support for the cue-taking argument. In 2019, with a Republican administration in power, affectively polarized Republicans opposed constitutional protections while affectively polarized Democrats supported them. The reverse was true in 2012 during a Democratic administration. The findings have important, albeit troubling, implications for American democracy, as affective polarization undermines support for basic democratic principles.
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?
Work with existing measures has been inconclusive about the relationship between affective polarization and support for partisan-based anti-democratic attitudes.
“Yet, work with the existing measures has been inconclusive about the relationship between affective polarization and support for partisan-based anti-democratic attitudes (e.g., ignoring checks and balances if one's party is in power) (cf.Broockman et al., 2023;Druckman et al., 2023Druckman et al., , 2024;;Kingzette et al., 2021;Lelkes & Westwood, 2017;Tappin & McKay, 2019;Voelkel et al., 2023;West”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Kingzette et al., 2021
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 [303]
Research on affective polarization shows that negative feelings toward political out-groups shape individuals' political attitudes and behaviors.
“Research on affective polarization shows that negative feelings toward political out-groups shape individuals’ political attitudes and behaviors (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016; Finkel et al., 2020; Kingzette et al., 2021).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Kingzette et al., 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 401
- Authors
- Kingzette, J., Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kingzette, Jon
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-09-22
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 663-677
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W3200018810
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 101 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 45 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 145.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Keywords
- affective polarization, democratic norms, constitutional protection, cue-taking, elite polarization, partisanship, political bias, ruling party, American democracy
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
