The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
(Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public
Open accessAbstract
Few topics in public opinion research have attracted as much attention in recent years as partisan polarization in the American mass public. Yet, there has been considerably less investigation into whether people perceive the electorate to be polarized and the patterns of these perceptions. Building on work in social psychology, we argue that Americans perceive more polarization with respect to policy issues than actually exists, a phenomenon known as false polarization. Data from a nationally representative probability sample and a novel estimation strategy to make inferences about false polarization show that people significantly misperceive the public to be more divided along partisan lines than it is in reality. Also, people’s misperceptions of opposing partisans are larger than those about their own party. We discuss the implications of these empirical patterns for American electoral politics.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“People also tend to overestimate the degree of polarization (Levendusky & Malhotra 2016, Westfall et al. 2015) and animosity (Mernyk et al. 2022, Ruggeri et al. 2021) between political groups, which may be exacerbated by the abundance of divisive content they see online.”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Levendusky & Malhotra 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These false beliefs help explain why social media can fuel (moral) conflicts, as most people are more moderate than people think (Levendusky & Malhotra 2016) and consume news from the same sources on social media (Guess 2021), while those who engage on social media are the most engaged partisans (Settle 2018).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Levendusky & Malhotra 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As other research has shown, such as Levendusky and Malhotra (2016:384), American citizens estimate that U.S. parties are 20% further apart than they actually are.”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Levendusky and Malhotra (2016:384)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Partisans might also represent their adversaries as more obstructionist95, more ideologically extreme122,151–153, more prejudiced against the in-group55, or more violent154 than they actually are.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [152]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,996
The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x · Cited by 2,352
Political Polarization in the American Public
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836 · Cited by 1,798
Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243 · Cited by 1,075
Stroud, N. J. (2011) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755509.001.0001 · Cited by 950
CLASSIFICATION AND QUANTITATIVE JUDGEMENT
Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1963.tb00865.x · Cited by 801
Niche news: the politics of news choice
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-1894 · Cited by 695
Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning
Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1956248 · Cited by 561
The Myth of the independent voter
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-1773 · Cited by 480
Yeager, D., Krosnick, J., Chang, L., Javitz, H., Levendusky, M., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfr020 · Cited by 434
Self-citationMagleby, K., Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., & Orr, E. (1992) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520912236 · Cited by 425
Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect Political Attitudes?
Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455 · Cited by 419
Self-citationComment: The Assessment of Policy Voting
Brody, R. A., & Page, B. I. (1972) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1957788 · Cited by 300
Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization
Ahler, D. J. (2014) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1017/s0022381614000085 · Cited by 289
Malhotra, N. A., & Krosnick, J. A. (2007) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpm003 · Cited by 268
Self-citationReal and perceived attitude agreement in social networks.
Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020697 · Cited by 219
Van Boven, L., Judd, C. M., & Sherman, D. K. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028145 · Cited by 159
Misperceptions in Intergroup Conflict: Disagreeing About What We Disagree About
Chambers, J. R., Baron, R. S., & Inman, M. L. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01662.x · Cited by 155
Projection and the Perception of Candidates' Issue Positions
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1982) · The Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.1177/106591298203500209 · Cited by 131
Understanding Misunderstanding: Social Psychological Perspectives
Pronin, E., Puccio, C., & Ross, L. D. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.038 · Cited by 120
Naï Realism and Affirmative Action: Adversaries are More Similar Than They Think
Sherman, D. K., Nelson, L. D., & Ross, L. D. (2003) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2504_2 · Cited by 67
Political Independence in America, Part I: On Being an Independent Partisan Supporter
Dennis, J. (1988) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123400004968 · Cited by 64
Federico, C. M. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204263787 · Cited by 38
Political Polarization Projection: Social Projection of Attitude Extremity and Attitudinal ProcessesPreprint
Leaf Van Boven, A., Judd, C. M., & Sherman, D. K. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 8
Westfall, J., Leaf Van Boven, A., Chambers, J. R., & Judd, C. M. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2186601 · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.2307/448017 · DOI
- Fiorina Morris Matthew Levendusky . 2006. “Disconnected: The Political Class versus the People.” In Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences of America’s Polarized Politics, edited by David Brady and Pietro Nivola , 49–71. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and the Hoover Institution Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,603
Self-citationMcCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764218759576 · Cited by 1,023
The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Their Consequences
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/697253 · Cited by 586
Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620917336 · Cited by 417
Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America
Settle, J. E. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108560573 · Cited by 377
Metadata
- Authors
- Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Levendusky, Matthew S.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-10-29
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 378-391
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2256445737
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 73.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0818839)
- 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
- partisan polarization, American public opinion, electoral 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
