The Strengthening of Partisan Affect
Abstract
Partisanship continues to divide Americans. Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), we find that partisans not only feel more negatively about the opposing party, but also that this negativity has become more consistent and has a greater impact on their political participation. We find that while partisan animus began to rise in the 1980s, it has grown dramatically over the past two decades. As partisan affect has intensified, it is also more structured; ingroup favoritism is increasingly associated with outgroup animus. Finally, hostility toward the opposing party has eclipsed positive affect for ones' own party as a motive for political participation.
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?
Individuals' dislike for the opposing party encourages them to participate more in politics.
“Individuals' dislike for the opposing party encourages them to participate more in politics (Iyengar & Krupenkin 2018).”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Iyengar & Krupenkin 2018
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Self-citationFear 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
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Self-citationFake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation
Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9 · Cited by 708 · see citing works
Reiljan, A. (2020) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12351 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Reducing affective polarization: Warm group relations or policy compromise?
Huddy, L., & Yair, O. (2021) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12699 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want from Political Representation
Costa, M. (2021) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12571 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization
Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.001 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Orian Harel, T., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.013 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization
Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J., Tsai, J. L., & Bernstein, M. S. (2025) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adu5584 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Affective Polarization Did Not Increase During the Coronavirus Pandemic
Boxell, L., Conway, J., Druckman, J. N., & Gentzkow, M. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3785328 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
The Political Dynamics of Partisan Polarization
Schmidt, E. R., Carmines, E. G., & Sniderman, P. M. (2025) · doi:10.1017/9781009472760 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review
Hajnal, Á. (2024) · Intersections · doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v10i2.1310 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Secondly, polarization at the mass level (including af - fective and pernicious polarization) involves the increase of partisan sentiment by defini - tion and was also shown to increase political participation (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018).”
BackgroundThornton, J. R. (2025) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x251347623 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Iyengar, S., & Krupenkin, M.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Iyengar, Shanto
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 201-218
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2792314235
- Cited by
- 527
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 19
- FWCI
- 187.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- partisan affect, partisanship, in-group favoritism, outgroup hostility, political participation, party identification, 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
