Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization
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
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?
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
Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2647642 · Cited by 681 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective
Garzia, D., Ferreira da Silva, F., & Maye, S. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad004 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
- 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
- ORCID
- Stoker, Laura
- 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