Cited by 64Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologySocial Media and Politics

When Efforts to Depolarize the Electorate Fail

Levendusky, Matthew S·2018·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

The mass public has become affectively polarized—ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party, with negative consequences for politics. Drawing on work in political and social psychology, this paper tests two mechanisms for reducing this discord, both of which have been shown to reduce similar biases in other settings: heightening partisan ambivalence, and using self-affirmation techniques. A population-based survey experiment shows that neither strategy reduces affective polarization in the aggregate. But this null finding masks an important heterogeneity: Heightening partisan ambivalence reduces affective polarization for ideological moderates, but increases such discord for those with more extreme ideological identities. Efforts to depolarize the electorate can make it more deeply divided, with important implications for our understanding of contemporary politics and the durability of affective polarization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfy036

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levendusky, M. S.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Levendusky, Matthew S
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2018
Volume
82
Issue
3
Pages
583-592
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W2889417773
Cited by
64
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
19.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
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
affective polarization, depolarization, self-affirmation, ideological extremity, survey experiment

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