CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 591Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and Politics

Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements

Open access
Lelkes, Yphtach·2016·Public Opinion Quarterly
DOI 10.1093/poq/nfw005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The debate on mass polarization is itself polarized. Some argue that the United States is in the midst of a culture war; others argue that the claims are exaggerated. As polarization is a multifaceted concept, both sides can be correct. I review four distinct manifestations of polarization that have appeared in the public opinion literature—ideological consistency, ideological divergence, perceived polarization, and affective polarization—and discuss ways in which each has been measured. Then, using longitudinal data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), I update past analyses in order to more clearly show the ways in which Americans have or have not polarized: Americans at the mass level have not diverged, nor have they become more consistent ideologically, but partisans have; perceptions of polarization have increased, but this change is driven by partisans, who increasingly dislike one another.

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/nfw005

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Ideological polarization may have increased as well, though this is still a topic of debate.

    “and ideological polarization may have increased as well (though this is still a topic of debate) (44).”

    From Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Conceptual proliferation and inconsistency in polarization research have resulted in significant confusion in public discourse and academia.

    “Given that distinct manifestations of polarization exhibit different patterns and induce distinct, often opposite causal mechanisms, this conceptual proliferation and inconsistency have resulted in significant confusion both in public discourse and academia (Fiorina & Abrams, 2008;Lelkes, 2016).”

    From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Lelkes, 2016

  • The literature on mass political polarization in the USA has yielded mixed findings about whether ordinary citizens are deeply divided, whether polarization threatens democratic functioning, and the nature of the threat.

    “The body of literature on mass political polarization in the USA has yielded mixed findings: ordinary citizens are deeply divided9,31,35,41–49 or they are not10,29,36,50–54; polarization poses a huge threat to democratic functioning3,11,55, is not a problem at all13,56–58 or the nature of the threat is ambiguous7,59,60.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [46]

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: 44

  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. 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 Electorate." Journal of Politics 60:634-52.
  3. ---. 2005. "Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America." The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 3:1-22.
  4. ---. 2008. "Is Polarization a Myth?" Journal of Politics 70:542-55.
  5. Ahler, Douglas J. 2014. "Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization." Journal of Politics 76:607-20.
  6. Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  7. Bafumi, Joseph, and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2009. "A New Partisan Voter." Journal of Politics 71:1-24.
  8. Baker, Wayne E. 2005. America's Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Baldassarri, Delia, and Andrew Gelman. 2008. "Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion." American Journal of Sociology 114:408-46.
  10. Bartels, Larry M. 2000. "Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996." American Journal of Political Science 44:35-50.
  11. Bogardus, Emory S. 1925. "Measuring Social Distance." Journal of Applied Sociology 9:299-308.
  12. Bryan, Christopher J., Carol S. Dweck, Lee Ross, Aaron C. Kay, and Natalia O. Mislavsky. 2009. "Political Mindset: Effects of Schema Priming on Liberal-Conservative Political Positions." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45:890-95.
  13. Bullock, John G., Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill, and Gregory A. Huber. 2015. "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10:519-78.
  14. Converse, Phillip E. 1964. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Politics." In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter, 206-61. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
  15. DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. 1996. "Have American's Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?" American Journal of Sociology 102:690-755.
  16. Ellis, Christopher, and James A. Stimson. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Fazio, Russell H., and Michael A. Olson. 2003. "Implicit Measures in Social Cognition Research: Their Meaning and Use." Annual Review of Psychology 54:297-327.
  18. Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel A. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2008. "Polarization in the American Public: Misconceptions and Misreadings." Journal of Politics 70:556-60.
  19. Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. "Political Polarization in the American Public." Annual Review of Political Science 11:563-88.
  20. ---. 2012. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  21. Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2005. Culture War? New York: Pearson Longman.
  22. Fiorina, Morris P., and Matthew Levendusky. 2006a. "Disconnected: The Political Class Versus the People." In Red and Blue Nation? Volume I: Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics, edited by Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, 49-71. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; and Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
  23. by Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, 95-110. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press;
  24. Hare, Christopher, David A. Armstrong, Ryan Bakker, Royce Carroll, and Keith T. Poole. 2015. "Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens' Ideological Preferences and Perceptions." American Journal of Political Science 59:759-74.
  25. Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization." American Political Science Review 95:619-31.
  26. ---. 2008. "Turned Off or Turned On? How Polarization Affects Political Engagement." In Red and Blue Nation? Volume I: Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics, edited by Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, 1-33. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; and Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
  27. Hetherington, Marc J., and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2015. Why Washington Won't Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  28. Hofmann, Wilhelm, Tobias Gschwendner, Brian A. Nosek, and Manfred Schmitt. 2005. "What Moderates Implicit-Explicit Consistency?" European Review of Social Psychology 16:335-90.
  29. Jacobson, Gary C. 2003. "Partisan Polarization in Presidential Support: The Electoral Connection." Congress & the Presidency: A Journal of Capital Studies 30:1-36.
  30. Jacoby, William G. 2014. "Is There a Culture War? Conflicting Value Structures in American Public Opinion." American Political Science Review 108:754-71.
  31. Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, and Mark C. Westlye. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  32. Kinder, Donald R., and David O. Sears. 1985. "Public Opinion and Political Action." In Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 3rd ed., edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, 659-741. New York: Random House.
  33. Levendusky, Matthew S. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Levendusky, Matthew S., and Jeremy C. Pope. 2011. "Red States vs. Blue States: Going Beyond the Mean." Public Opinion Quarterly 75:227-48.
  35. Mason, Lilliana. 2015. "'I Disrespectfully Agree': The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization." American Journal of Political Science 59:128-45.
  36. Pew Research Center. 2014. "Political Polarization in the American Public." Available at http:// www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.
  37. Pfister, Roland, Katharina A. Schwarz, Markus Janczyk, Rick Dale, and Jon Freeman. 2013. "Good Things Peak in Pairs: A Note on the Bimodality Coefficient." Frontiers in Psychology 4. Available at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00700/full. · DOI
  38. Prior, Markus, Gaurav Sood, and Kabir Khanna. 2015. "You Cannot Be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10:489-518.
  39. Soroka, Stuart N., and Christopher Wlezien. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Tam Cho, Wendy K., James G. Gimpel, and Iris S. Hui. 2013. "Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103:856-70.
  41. Treier, Shawn, and D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2009. "The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate." Public Opinion Quarterly 73:679-703.
  42. Ura, Joseph Daniel, and Christopher R. Ellis. 2012. "Partisan Moods: Polarization and the Dynamics of Mass Party Preferences." Journal of Politics 74:277-91.
  43. Van Boven, Leaf, Charles M. Judd, and David K. Sherman. 2012. "Political Polarization Projection: Social Projection of Partisan Attitude Extremity and Attitudinal Processes." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103:84-100.
  44. Wilcox, Clyde, Lee Sigelman, and Elizabeth Cook. 1989. "Some Like It Hot: Individual Differences in Responses to Group Feeling Thermometers." Public Opinion Quarterly 53:246-57.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lelkes, Y.
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016
Volume
80
Issue
S1
Pages
392-410
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfw005
OpenAlex
W2308341436
Cited by
591
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
170.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (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 › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
mass polarization, culture wars, ideological consistency, ideological divergence, perceived polarization, affective polarization, partisanship, public opinion measurement, American National Election Studies

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