When Common Identities Decrease Trust: An Experimental Study of Partisan Women
Abstract
How does sharing a common gender identity affect the relationship between Democratic and Republican women? Social psychological work suggests that common ingroup identities unite competing factions. After closely examining the conditions upon which the common ingroup identity model depends, I argue that opposing partisans who share the superordinate identity of being a woman will not reduce their intergroup biases. Instead, I predict that raising the salience of their gender will increase cross‐party biases. I support my hypotheses with a nationally representative survey of 3,000 adult women and two survey experiments, each with over 1,000 adult women. These findings have direct implications for how women evaluate one another in contentious political settings and, more broadly, for our understanding of when we can and cannot rely upon common identities to bridge the partisan divide.
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?
Other recent work is unable to find common ground between parties to reduce affective polarization.
“other recent work is unable to find common ground between parties to reduce affective polarization (e.g., Klar, 2018;Levendusky, 2018b;Myrick, 2021;Wojcieszak & Warner, 2020).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Klar, 2018
Cites
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
Political Trust and Trustworthiness
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475 · Cited by 2,190 · see citing works
The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792779343000004 · Cited by 1,559 · see citing works
(Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American Public
Levendusky, M. S., & Malhotra, N. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfv045 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9181-x · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Inseparability of Race and Partisanship in the United States
Westwood, S. J., & Peterson, E. (2022) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09648-9 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Klar, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Klar, Samara
- ORCID
- Klar, Samara
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-06-06
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 610-622
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2807298963
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 18.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
- Keywords
- common ingroup identity, gender identity, intergroup trust, superordinate identity, partisanship, partisan divide, gender salience
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