Cited by 182Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationAmerican Political and Social DynamicsPolitical Theory and Democracy

Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization

Stoker, Laura, Jennings, M. Kent·2008·American Journal of Political Science

Abstract

In this article we address the topic of increasing partisan polarization in the American mass public, focusing on the twin influences of individual‐level development and cohort replacement and the interaction between the two. We posit a model of individual development that consists of declining openness to change beyond young adulthood, an increase in party‐issue constraint as age advances, and cohort‐specific responsiveness to changes in the partisan environment. Results from a long‐term panel study provide initial evidence of these dynamics. We then use simulations to generate expectations about how these developmental processes play out across cohorts, issues, and time. These expectations are evaluated through a cohort analysis of National Election Studies data from 1972 to 2004. Overall, our results provide a new perspective on the dynamics of individual political development and their implications for the timing, extent, and future trajectory of partisan polarization in the U.S. electorate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00333.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The terms 'affective polarization', 'partisan polarization', and 'partisan affective polarization' have often been used interchangeably in the literature.

    “The terms “affective polarization” (Iyengar et al. 2019; Wagner 2021), “partisan polarization” (Stoker and Jennings 2008; Levendusky and Malhotra 2016), or “partisan affective polarization” (Robison and Moskowitz 2019; Stoetzer et al. 2022) have often been used interchangeably in the literature.”

    From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Stoker and Jennings 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
  • Stoker, Laura
  • Jennings, M. Kent
Venue
American Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
619-635
ISSN
  • 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5907
OpenAlex
W1985295140
Cited by
182
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
44.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
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 › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
partisan polarization, cohort replacement, openness to change, American electorate

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