Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Scholars warn that partisan divisions in the mass public threaten the health of American democracy. We conducted a megastudy ( n = 32,059 participants) testing 25 treatments designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans’ partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. We find that many treatments reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting relatable sympathetic individuals with different political beliefs or by emphasizing common identities shared by rival partisans. We also identify several treatments that reduced support for undemocratic practices—most strongly by correcting misperceptions of rival partisans’ views or highlighting the threat of democratic collapse—which shows that antidemocratic attitudes are not intractable. Taken together, the study’s findings identify promising general strategies for reducing partisan division and improving democratic attitudes, shedding theoretical light on challenges facing American democracy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Voelkel et al. (2024) find scant evidence that partisans differ in affective polarization.
“For instance, in their mega-study of interventions to reduce affective polarization, Voelkel et al. (2024) find scant evidence that partisans differ (see their supplementary materials, S.8.1)”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Voelkel et al. (2024)
Changes in affective polarization are not necessarily linked to changes in antidemocratic attitudes.
“These results are consistent with recent studies finding that changes in affective polarization are not necessarily linked to changes in antidemocratic attitudes (39,50).”
From Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
The eight AAPA factors are bipartisan threats to the healthy functioning of democracy.
“We draw, in particular, on a recent large-scale field experiment that articulated eight categories of antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity as bipartisan threats to the healthy functioning of democracy (39).”
From Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
The survey structure followed the study that introduced the eight AAPA variables.
“We followed the structure of the survey used in the study that introduced the eight AAPA variables (39).”
From Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Consistent with prior work, this work shows a larger treatment effect on partisan animosity compared to other factors such as support for undemocratic practices and support for partisan violence.
“Consistent with (39), our work also shows a larger treatment effect on partisan animosity compared to other factors such as support for undemocratic practices and support for partisan violence.”
From Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149 · Cited by 37,615 · see citing works
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · see citing works
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-citationIyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
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 Sectarianism in America
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abe1715 · Cited by 931 · see citing works
Self-citationAffective 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
Self-citationThe Space between Us: Social Geography and Politics
Enos, R. D. (2017) · doi:10.1017/9781108354943 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Peterson, E., & Iyengar, S. (2019) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/pmn7h · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms
Clayton, K., Davis, N. T., Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Ryan, T. J., & Wood, T. J. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024125118 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding
Braley, A., Lenz, G. S., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Self-citationLau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., Ditonto, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2017) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9354-8 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Measuring Democratic Backsliding
Little, A. T., & Meng, A. (2024) · PS: Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s104909652300063x · Cited by 121 · cited 2× · see citing works
“INTRODUCTION: Scholars, practitioners, and politicians have raised concerns about deepening partisan divisions and the health of American democracy.”
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
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Partisan Hostility and American Democracy
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2024) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226833668.001.0001 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- L. Boxell, M. Gentzkow, J. M. Shapiro, Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Rev. Econ. Stat. 10.1162/rest_a_01160 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
- L. Bartels, Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans' commitment to democracy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 22752-22759 (2020).
- D. Broockman, J. Kalla, S. Westwood, Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 10.1111/ajps.12719 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
- J. G. Voelkel, J. Chu, M. Stagnaro, J. S. Mernyk, C. Redekopp, S. L. Pink, J. Druckman, D. G. Rand, R. Willer, Interventions reducing affective polarization do not improve anti- democratic attitudes. Nat. Hum. Behav. 10.1038/s41562-022-01466-9 (2022). · DOI
- J. S. Mernyk, S. L. Pink, J. N. Druckman, R. Willer, Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2116851119 (2022).
- S. J. Westwood, J. Grimmer, M. Tyler, C. Nall, Current research overstates American support for political violence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2116870119 (2022).
- J. N. Druckman, S. Kang, J. Chu, M. N. Stagnaro, J. G. Voelkel, J. S. Mernyk, S. L. Pink, C. Redekopp, D. G. Rand, R. Willer, Correcting exaggerated meta-perceptions reduces American legislators' support for undemocratic practices. [Preprint] (2023) https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/our-work/working-papers/2023/wp-23-04.html
- D. J. Hopkins, Stable views in a time of tumult: assessing trends in US public opinion, 2007-20. Br. J. Polit. Sci 10.1017/S0007123422000254 (2022). · DOI
- A. Wuttke, F. Sichart, F. Foos, Null Effects of Pro-Democracy Speeches by U.S. Republicans in the Aftermath of January 6th. [Preprint] (2022). 10.31235/osf.io/pd5za. · DOI
- Athey, S., Tibshirani, J., & Wager, S. (2019). Generalized random forests. Annals of Statistics, 47 (2): 1148-78.
- Carey, J. M., Helmke, G., Nyhan, B., Sanders, M., & Stokes, S. (2019). Searching for bright lines in the Trump presidency. Perspectives on Politics, 17(3), 699-718.
- Druckman, J. N., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization?. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114-122.
- Graham, M. H., & Svolik, M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392-409.
- Grillo, E., & Prato, C. (2023). Reference points and democratic backsliding. American Journal of Political Science, 67(1), 71-88.
- Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen (eds.). 2022. World Values Survey: Round Seven - Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. doi:10.14281/18241. · DOI
- Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics, 65-70.
- Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1-17.
- Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.
- Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. E. L., Joy-Gaba, J. A., ... & Nosek, B. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1765.
- Lin, W., & Green, D. P. (2016). Standard operating procedures: A safety net for pre-analysis plans. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(3), 495-500.
- Marley, P., & Stein, J. (2016, July 30). Judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID, early voting laws. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/30/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin- voter-id-early-voting-laws/87803408/
- Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N., & Willer, R. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(16), e2116851119.
- Milkman, K. L., Gandhi, L., Patel, M. S., Graci, H. N., Gromet, D. M., Ho, H., ... & Duckworth, A. L. (2022). A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(6), e2115126119.
- Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D., Ho, H., Kay, J. S., Lee, T. W., Pandiloski, P., ... & Duckworth, A. L. (2021). Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature, 600(7889), 478-483.
- Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517-529.
- Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
- Santos, L. A., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., & Zaki, J. (2022). Belief in the utility of cross-partisan empathy reduces partisan animosity and facilitates political persuasion. Psychological Science, 33(9), 1557-1573.
- Westwood, S. J., Grimmer, J., Tyler, M., & Nall, C. (2022). Current research overstates American support for political violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(12), e2116870119.
- Yadlowsky, S., Fleming, S., Shah, N., Brunskill, E., & Wager, S. (2021). Evaluating treatment prioritization rules via rank-weighted average treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07966. · arXiv
- Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 111(4), 493.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding
Braley, A., Lenz, G. S., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Self-citationHow to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationReranking 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
“…we drew specifically on prior work that articulates eight factors as problematic outcomes for healthy democratic functioning, referred to as AAPA ( 39 ): (i) partisan animosity, (ii) support for undemocratic practices, (iii) support for partisan violence, (iv) support for undemocratic candidates,…”
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
- Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L. G., Allis, L. V., Baleria, G., Ballantyne, N., Van Bavel, J. J., Blunden, H., Braley, A., Bryan, C. J., Celniker, J. B., Cikara, M., Clapper, M. V., Clayton, K., Collins, H., DeFilippis, E., Dieffenbach, M., Doell, K. C., Dorison, C., Duong, M., Felsman, P., Fiorella, M., Francis, D., Franz, M., Gallardo, R. A., Gifford, S., Goya-Tocchetto, D., Gray, K., Green, J., Greene, J., Güngör, M., Hall, M., Hecht, C. A., Javeed, A., Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C., Kay, N. R., Keating, B., Kelly, J. M., Kirk, J. R. G., Kopell, M., Kteily, N., Kubin, E., Lees, J., Lenz, G., Levendusky, M., Littman, R., Luo, K., Lyles, A., Lyons, B., Marsh, W., Martherus, J., Maurer, L. A., Mehl, C., Minson, J., Moore, M., Moore-Berg, S. L., Pasek, M. H., Pentland, A., Puryear, C., Rahnama, H., Rathje, S., Rosato, J., Saar-Tsechansky, M., Almeida Santos, L., Seifert, C. M., Shariff, A., Simonsson, O., Spitz Siddiqi, S., Stone, D. F., Strand, P., Tomz, M., Yeager, D. S., Yoeli, E., Zaki, J., Druckman, J. N., Rand, D. G., & Willer, R.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- MIT Media Lab (US)
- Indiana State University (US)
- ActiVote, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
- Sonoma State University (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA.
- American University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Constructive Dialogue Institute, New York, NY 10016, USA.
- University of Konstanz (DE)
- Georgetown University (US)
- Oakland University (US)
- Bowdoin College (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Fuqua School for Business, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- University of Notre Dame (US)
- University of Rochester (US)
- New York University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- YOUnify, Salt Lake City, UT 84106, USA.
- Civity, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA.
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- CommonAlly, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- Morning Consult, Washington, DC 20004, USA.
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
- Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
- McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705, USA.
- Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
- University of Michigan (US)
- Karolinska Institutet (SE)
- Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92617, USA.
- Marquette University (US)
- Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Voelkel, Jan G.
- Stagnaro, Michael N.
- Chu, James Y.
- Willer, Robb
- ORCID
- Voelkel, Jan G.
- Stagnaro, Michael N.
- Chu, James Y.
- Pink, Sophia L.
- Mernyk, Joseph S.
- Redekopp, Chrystal
- Ghezae, Isaias
- Cashman, Matthew
- Adjodah, Dhaval
- Allen, Levi G.
- Baleria, Gina
- Van Bavel, Jay J.
- Blunden, Hayley
- Braley, Alia
- Bryan, Christopher J.
- Celniker, Jared B.
- Cikara, Mina
- Clapper, Margarett V.
- Clayton, Katherine
- Collins, Hanne
- DeFilippis, Evan
- Dieffenbach, Macrina
- Doell, Kimberly C.
- Dorison, Charles
- Felsman, Peter
- Francis, David
- Franz, Michael
- Gallardo, Roman A.
- Gifford, Sara
- Goya-Tocchetto, Daniela
- Gray, Kurt
- Green, Joe
- Greene, Joshua
- Güngör, Mertcan
- Hall, Matthew
- Hecht, Cameron A.
- Jost, John T.
- Kay, Aaron C.
- Kay, Nick R.
- Keating, Brandyn
- Kelly, John Michael
- Kirk, James R. G.
- Kopell, Malka
- Kteily, Nour
- Kubin, Emily
- Lees, Jeffrey
- Lenz, Gabriel
- Levendusky, Matthew
- Littman, Rebecca
- Luo, Kara
- Lyons, Ben
- Marsh, Wayde
- Martherus, James
- Maurer, Lauren Alpert
- Mehl, Caroline
- Minson, Julia
- Moore, Molly
- Moore-Berg, Samantha L.
- Pasek, Michael H.
- Pentland, Alex
- Puryear, Curtis
- Rathje, Steve
- Rosato, Jay
- Saar-Tsechansky, Maytal
- Almeida Santos, Luiza
- Seifert, Colleen M.
- Shariff, Azim
- Simonsson, Otto
- Spitz Siddiqi, Shiri
- Stone, Daniel F.
- Strand, Palma
- Tomz, Michael
- Yeager, David S.
- Yoeli, Erez
- Zaki, Jamil
- Druckman, James N.
- Rand, David G.
- Willer, Robb
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2024-10-18
- Volume
- 386
- Issue
- 6719
- Pages
- eadh4764-eadh4764
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W4403510391
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 78 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 254.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fetzer Institute
- Ford Motor Company
- Northwestern University
- U.S. Navy
- Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
- Office of Naval Research
- 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 › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- partisan animosity, partisan divisions, democratic attitudes, political polarization, common identity, collapse of democracy
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Democracy, Female, Humans, Male, Politics, Public Opinion, United States
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
