How Are We Apart? Continuity and Change in the Structure of Ideological Disagreement in the American Public, 1980–2012
Abstract
Even after two decades of intense research, social scientists are still in disagreement over whether the American public is polarized. Starting from the premise that disagreement is multifaceted, this paper attempts to clarify how and which aspects of ideological disagreement have changed over the past few decades. Three major structural features of ideological disagreement that have been discussed under the umbrella term “polarization” are identified from the literature—polarization, partisan sorting, and dimensional alignment—and redefined into analytically distinct and non-overlapping concepts. Two different scaling methods are applied to the American National Election Studies from 1980 to 2012 in order to examine changes in how citizens organize their attitudes regarding concrete political and social issues (operational ideology) and their self-identifications with the ideological labels “liberal” and “conservative” (symbolic ideology). Results show at best mixed evidence of growing polarization. Partisan sorting has increased over time on both symbolic and operational ideology. However, it is mainly the symbolic side on which disagreement across partisan lines is most pronounced. Finally, contrary to the popular notion of a culture war dividing the United States, the public has become less polarized on moral issues, and the moral dimension of citizens’ operational ideology has become dealigned from the economic and civil rights dimension over the past decade.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sometimes multiple lines of potential disagreement in society become highly overlapping, aligned or consolidated, reducing multiple potential cleavages to a single dimension that dominates political relations.
“Sometimes multiple lines of potential disagreement in society become highly overlapping, aligned or consolidated. In these cases, multiple potential cleavages might be reduced to a single dimension that comes to dominate political relations8,72,77,78.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [77]
Increased alignment between partisanship and ideology reflects a 'sorting' process that increases intergroup conflict.
“From a more macro-political perspective, increased alignment between partisanship and ideology reflects a ‘sorting’ process that increases intergroup conflict35,38,77.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [77]
In the USA, there are three major cleavages on economic, civil rights and moral issues, with the moral dimension largely crosscutting the other two dimensions.
“In the USA, there are three major cleavages on economic, civil rights and moral issues, with the moral dimension largely crosscutting the other two dimensions40,77.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [77]
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Pluralistic Collapse: The “Oil Spill” Model of Mass Opinion Polarization
DellaPosta, D. (2020) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122420922989 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Kozlowski, A. C., & Murphy, J. P. (2021) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102498 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Polarizing the middle: internet exposure and public opinion
Bryson, B. P. (2020) · International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · doi:10.1108/ijssp-09-2019-0181 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Park, B.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Park, Barum
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-12-28
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1757-1784
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-7605
- OpenAlex
- W2780666398
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 19.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Forces (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
- Keywords
- ideological disagreement, political polarization, partisan sorting, culture wars, ethical considerations, dealignment, American public opinion, ideological dimension, 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