Cited by 67Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationAmerican Political and Social DynamicsAcademic Freedom and Politics

How Are We Apart? Continuity and Change in the Structure of Ideological Disagreement in the American Public, 1980–2012

Park, Barum·2018·Social Forces

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

Crossref · 10.1093/sf/sox093

Cites

2 of 2 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.

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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, B.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Park, Barum
Venue
Social Forces
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