Cited by 2,996Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and PoliticsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Affect, Not Ideology

Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, Lelkes, Yphtach·2012·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

The current debate over the extent of polarization in the American mass public focuses on the extent to which partisans’ policy preferences have moved. Whereas “maximalists” claim that partisans’ views on policies have become more extreme over time (Abramowitz 2010), “minimalists” (Fiorina and Abrams 2009) contend that the majority of Americans remain centrist, and that what little centrifugal movement has occurred reflects sorting, i.e., the increased association between partisanship and ideology. We argue in favor of an alternative definition of polarization, based on the classic concept of social distance (Bogardus 1947). Using data from a variety of sources, we demonstrate that both Republicans and Democrats increasingly dislike, even loathe, their opponents. We also find that partisan affect is inconsistently (and perhaps artifactually) founded in policy attitudes. The more plausible account lies in the nature of political campaigns; exposure to messages attacking the out-group reinforces partisans’ biased views of their opponents.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfs038

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 1995, Why Parties?
  2. 1960, Civic Culture Study, 1959–1960 [Computer file]. ICPSR07201-v2
  3. 2001, “The Polarizing Effects of Congressional Primaries.”, 95
  4. 1959, Political Socialization
  5. 1987, “The Salience of Social Categories.”, 117
  6. 1991, Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,901–2,000 of 2,727

Metadata

Authors
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2012-09-01
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
405-431
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W2124751389
Cited by
2,996
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 465 · 2025: 445 · 2024: 388 · 2023: 275 · 2022: 299 · 2021: 273 · 2020: 247 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 170 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 1
FWCI
149.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
political polarization, partisan affect, social distance, partisanship, ideology, policy attitudes, outgroup hostility, political campaigns, partisan sorting, American public opinion

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