Cited by 413Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologySocial Media and Politics

A Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization

Open access
Mason, Lilliana·2016·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

Although anecdotal stories of political anger and enthusiasm appear to be provoked largely by issues such as gay marriage or healthcare reform, social sorting is capable of playing a powerful role in driving anger and enthusiasm, undercutting the perception that only practical disagreements are driving higher levels of political rancor. Because a highly aligned set of social identities increases an individual’s perceived differences between groups, the emotions that result from group conflict are likely to be heightened among well-sorted partisans. An experimental design in a national online survey manipulates political threats and reassurances, including a threat to a party and a threat to distinct policy goals. Issue positions are found to drive anger and enthusiasm in the presence of issue-based messages, but not all party-based messages. Partisan identity drives anger and enthusiasm in the presence of party-based threats and reassurances, but not all issue-based messages. Social sorting, however, drives anger and enthusiasm in response to all threats and reassurances, suggesting that well-sorted partisans are more reliably emotionally reactive to political messages. Finally, these results are driven not by the most-sorted partisans, but by the emotional dampening effect that occurs among those with the most cross-cutting identities. As social sorting increases in the American electorate, the cooler heads inspired by cross-cutting identities are likely to be taking up a smaller portion of the electorate.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfw001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 political divide has remained relatively stable in the United States in terms of issue positions, while many other indicators point to a significant increase in partisan polarization and animosity in the mass public.

    “While the political divide has remained relatively stable in the United States in terms of issue positions (33), many other indicators point to a significant increase in partisan polarization and animosity in the mass public (18, 34): Democrats and Republicans are growing increasingly cold to each other, coming to dislike or even disdain their partisan opponents (15).”
  • When cleavages and conflicts come to align (sorting), the effects intensify prejudice and conflict between opposing political groups.

    “Correspondingly, when cleavages and conflicts come to align—what we will refer to as sorting—the effects are synergetic in terms of intensifying prejudice and conflict between opposing political groups (18, 44).”
  • Partisanship is emerging as an important social identity under which many societal divisions and conflicts are coming to align.

    “Many scholars link these negative feelings to shifts in identity, with partisanship emerging as an important social identity under which many societal divisions and conflicts are coming to align (15–18).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  2. Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. "Ideological Realignment in the US Elections." Journal of Politics 60:634-52.
  3. Ahler, Douglas J. 2014. "Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization." Journal of Politics 76:607-20.
  4. Brewer, Marilynn, and Kathleen P. Pierce. 2005. "Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31:428-37.
  5. Broockman, David. Forthcoming. "Approaches to Studying Representation." Legislative Studies Quarterly.
  6. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York & London: John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Ellis, Christopher, and James A. Stimson. 2012. Ideology in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Fiorina, Morris P. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  9. Green, John C., Lyman A. Kellstedt, Corwin E. Smidt, and James L. Guth. 2007. "How the Faithful Voted: Religious Communities and the Presidential Vote." In A Matter of Faith: Religion in the 2004 Presidential Election, edited by David E. Campbell, 15-36. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  10. Huddy, Leonie. 2013. "From Group Identity to Political Commitment and Cohesion." In The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears, and Robert Jervis, 737-73. New York: Oxford University Press.
  11. Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aaroe. 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity." American Political Science Review 109:1-17.
  12. Layman, Geoffrey. 1997. "Religion and Political Behavior in the United States: The Impact of Beliefs, Affiliations, and Commitment from 1980 to 1994." Public Opinion Quarterly 61:288-316.
  13. ---. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
  14. Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Mackie, Diane M., Thierry Devos, and Eliot R. Smith. 2000. "Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79:602-16.
  16. MacKuen, Michael, Jennifer Wolak, Luke Keele, and George E. Marcus. 2010. "Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation." American Journal of Political Science 54:440-58.
  17. Mangum, Maurice. 2013. "The Racial Underpinnings of Party Identification and Political Ideology." Social Science Quarterly 94:1222-1244.
  18. ---. 2015. "'I Disrespectfully Agree': The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization." American Journal of Political Science 59:128-45.
  19. McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Mutz, Diana. 2002. "Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice." American Political Science Review 96:111-26.
  21. ---. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  22. Nordlinger, Eric. 1972. Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for International Affairs.
  23. Parker, Christopher S., and Matt A. Barreto. 2013. Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  24. Powell, G. Bingham. 1976. "Political Cleavage Structure, Cross-Pressure Process, and Partisanship: An Empirical Test of the Theory." American Journal of Political Science 20:1-23.
  25. Roccas, Sonia, and Marilynn Brewer. 2002. "Social Identity Complexity." Personality and Social Psychology Review 6:88-106.
  26. Smith, Eliot R., Charles Seger, and Diane Mackie. 2007. "Can Emotions Be Truly Group Level? Evidence Regarding Four Conceptual Criteria." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93:431-46.
  27. Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1979. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." In Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings, edited by Michael Hogg and Dominic Abrams, 94-109. New York: Psychology Press.
  28. Valentino, Nicholas A., Ted Brader, Eric W. Groenendyk, Krysha Gregorowicz, and Vincent L. Hutchings. 2011. "Election Night's Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation." Journal of Politics 73:156-70.
  29. Weeks, Brian E. 2015. "Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation." Journal of Communication, Early View Online.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mason, L.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Corresponding author
Mason, Lilliana
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2016
Volume
80
Issue
S1
Pages
351-377
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W2302938491
Cited by
413
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
106.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (9209410, 9009379, 8808361, 8341310, 9707741, 9317631, 1065054, 8207580)
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
political anger, political passion, social sorting, partisan identity, group conflict, emotions in 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