The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 112 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Open accessAbstract
While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. We trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord and conclude with suggestions for future work.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
77 No full text of the sources · 18 Own interpretation · 17 Sources not found · 10 No basis given · 3 Supported · 3 Not checked yet · 3 Own result · 1 Partly supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Behavioral data from smartphone activity confirms that Americans are averse to cross-partisan dialogue within their families, especially in the wake of the 2016 election (Chen & Rohla 2018).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Chen & Rohla 2018 source
The paper reports that cross-partisan Thanksgiving gatherings were shorter in 2016 and estimates that 33.9 million person-hours of cross-partisan discourse were lost (p. 5). It says its findings corroborate avoidance of personal confrontations over politics following the election (p. 6). The smartphone data measure gathering duration, which the paper uses as a proxy for opportunities for dialogue. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“And these preferences appear substantively larger than apolitical benchmarks, such as the 17-20% of people who would not want their child marrying a fan of an opposing baseball team (Hersh 2016).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Hersh 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction says political ideology affects evaluations of potential romantic partners, but it gives no cross-party marriage rate or comparison with an apolitical benchmark. Searches for the baseball-team marriage question and the 17–20% figure found no passage addressing them in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Out-party feeling ( purple line ) has decreased dramatically, especially after 1990.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is worth noting that affective polarization actually decreased between 2012 and 2016 due to decreases in feeling toward the in-party.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“and that extremity in issue opinions is not a necessary condition for affective polarization”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Partisanship is a particularly salient and powerful identifier for two main reasons.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Political campaigns recur frequently and last for many months (or even years) in the contemporary United States.
In the paper
“Political parties often form along these lines precisely because group identities are so stable and significant”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lipset & Rokkan 1967
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Rather, we argue that affective polarization is largely distinct from the ideological divide”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“From a social identity perspective, affective polarization is a natural offshoot of this sense of partisan group identity”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar & Westwood 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but has become the primary vehicle for measuring affect toward a wide range of groups in the electorate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In medicine, Hersh & Goldenberg (2016) find that Republican and Democratic physicians give different advice to patients on politicized health issues such as abortion, but not on apolitical health topics.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hersh & Goldenberg (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports that Democratic and Republican primary care physicians recommended different treatment plans in survey vignettes about politicized issues, including abortion, but not in the other vignettes (opening summary). The claim overstates the finding as advice actually given to patients; the study measured physicians’ responses to hypothetical cases, not observed patient encounters. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This is also related to a long tradition of work showing that diverse social networks-which expose individuals to different political points of view-foster tolerance for opposing viewpoints, which should also ameliorate affective polarization (Mutz 2002).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Mutz 2002 source
The opening passage says the study examines heterogeneous political discussion networks and finds experimental support for a causal role of cross-cutting exposure in fostering political tolerance. The Discussion explains that exposure to opposing views and close ties across political differences contribute to tolerance. The proposed effect on affective polarization is the citing authors’ inference, not a finding they attribute to Mutz. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, there is also evidence that in some situations, partisan bias is prompted more by in-group love (Lelkes & Westwood 2017).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lelkes & Westwood 2017 source
The Discussion states that affective polarization is “more about in-group love than out-group hate” and that partisan prejudice more consistently benefits co-partisans than harms opposing partisans. The claim’s qualification, “in some situations,” is consistent with the paper’s distinction between these behaviors. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
In the paper
“We also plot affective polarization ( gray line )-the difference between mean in-party feeling and mean out-party feeling-which shows a significant increase over time (Iyengar et al. 2012), mainly due to an increase in animus against the out-party.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar et al. 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In-party feeling ( green line ) has remained high over the period plotted, though it has decreased slightly in recent years.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our conceptualization of polarization as rooted in affect and identity stands in contrast to a long tradition in political science of studying polarization as the difference between the policy positions of Democrats and Republicans”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fiorina et al. 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It is particularly noteworthy that ( a ) the change is not that people like their own party more over time; rather, there is an increase in out-party animus, especially in recent years”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar et al. 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If partisanship is an important social identity in its own right, partisans should be averse to entering into close interpersonal relations with their opponents.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“they are theoretically and empirically distinct concepts.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Abramowitz & Webster 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The feeling thermometer was originally created as a 'neutrally worded means of eliciting responses to a wide variety of candidates'”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weisberg & Rusk 1970 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While scholars have relied on several different survey items, the most central is the 'feeling thermometer' question from the American National Election Study (ANES) time series.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Survey self-reports are the most basic and widely used measure of affective polarization in the literature.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In the United States, partisanship means identifying with the Democrat group or the Republican group”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alternatively, the finding may reflect the well-known association between politics and disagreement; most people prefer to be in agreeable relationships.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Most people prefer to be in agreeable relationships.
In the paper
“These results held even when the out-party candidate had a significantly higher grade point average (4.0 versus 3.5); the probability of a partisan selecting the more qualified out-party candidate was never above 30%.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar & Westwood 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Implicit measures are known to be much harder to manipulate than explicit self-reports; they are therefore more valid and less susceptible to impression management (Boysen et al. 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boysen et al. 2006 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Klinkner (2004) challenged much of this data analysis by showing that residential sorting has not increased significantly over the past few decades when one analyzes party registration data instead of presidential vote returns.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Klinkner (2004) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and that selection rather than convergence over time explains spousal agreement”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Iyengar et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the limitations of feeling thermometers and social distance measures, an advantage is that they have been asked for long periods of time, allowing researchers to document changes over time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results indicated little racial bias; whites, in fact, preferred the African American applicant (55.8%).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar & Westwood 2015 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, implicit bias is less pronounced than explicit bias as measured through survey questions; 91% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats in the same study explicitly evaluated their party more favorably.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar & Westwood 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“But 79.2% of Democrats picked the Democratic applicant and 80% of Republicans picked the Republican applicant.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar & Westwood 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“T o put that finding into context, analogous figures for dating pairs matched by level of education and religion are 10.6% and 50.0%, respectively.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Huber & Malhotra (2017) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this is the case, it would also indicate a rise in affective polarization.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The difference in the D-score-the operational indicator of implicit bias-across the party divide was 0.50, while the corresponding difference in implicit racial bias across the racial divide was only 0.18 (see also Theodoridis 2017 for an application of implicit measures to the study of partisanship).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“People may also perceive copartisans to be more physically attractive (Nicholson et al. 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nicholson et al. 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“about 64% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans say they have 'just a few' or 'no' close friends who are from the other political party”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pew Research Center (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 1960, only 4-5% were upset with their child marrying someone from the out party, but that figure had jumped to one-third of Democrats and one-half of Republicans by 2010 (Iyengar et al. 2012, pp. 416-18).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Iyengar et al. 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A major limitation of implicit and behavioral measures is the lack of historical survey data.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Bishop (2009), who reported descriptive statistics showing that counties had become more politically homogeneous over time.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bishop (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Results show that copartisans consistently receive a bonus while opposing partisans are subject to a financial penalty.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gerber & Huber (2009) used data from county tax receipts to estimate that a county that moves from 50% Democratic to 65% Democratic undergoes an increase in consumption 0.9% higher following a Democratic presidential victory compared with a Republican presidential victory.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gerber & Huber (2009) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When Ahler & Sood (2018) correct respondents' misperceptions, respondents think the other party is less extreme, and affective polarization decreases (i.e., they like the other party more).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ahler & Sood (2018) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Only about 11% of Democrats belong to a labor union, but in a large national survey, the average American thought that 39% of Democrats were union members; 44% of Republicans had this perception along with 37% of Democrats.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ahler & Sood (2018) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The modal member of both parties is a middle-aged, white, nonevangelical Christian.
In the paper
“Hetherington & Rudolph (2015) show that affective polarization undermines trust on the part of the party that is out of power, and hence makes governing more complex.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hetherington & Rudolph (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Michelitch's (2015) pioneering work in this area found that Ghanaian taxi drivers accept lower prices from copartisans and demand higher prices from counter-partisans.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Michelitch's (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Levendusky (2018b) uses a population-based survey experiment to show that priming partisan ambivalence and using self-affirmation techniques-both of which have been shown to reduce similar biases in other contexts-fail to reduce partisan animus.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Levendusky (2018b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The authors found no evidence of out-group animus; the purchasing rate remained stable across same-party and opposite-party sellers.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McConnell et al. (2018) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They find that in the Democratic county, Democratic resumes were 2.4 percentage points more likely to receive a callback than Republican resumes; the partisan preference for Republican resumes in the Republican county was 5.6 percentage points.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gift & Gift (2015) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Likewise, while only 2.2% of Republicans earn more than $250,000 per year, the average citizen thought that 38% of Republicans earned that much.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ahler & Sood (2018) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The modal member of both parties is a middle-aged, white, nonevangelical Christian.
In the paper
“At the same time, they performed lower-quality work and exhibited less effort.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McConnell et al. (2018) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, in his experimental results, subjects who had had their American identity primed were 25% less likely to rate the other party at 0 degrees on a feeling thermometer scale, and 35% more likely to rate the other party at 50 degrees or higher; there are similar effects for ratings of various traits”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Levendusky (2018a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While the website had no effect on the behavior of Democrats or Independents, it had an enormous effect on Republicans.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lerman et al. (2017) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, noncoethnic counter-partisans pay 16% more and noncoethnic copartisans 6% more in taxi fares than coethnic copartisans, suggesting an interaction between ethnicity and partisanship.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Michelitch's (2015) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“implying that party polarization is driven by out-group hostility”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although social psychologists studying group conflict have generally concluded that in-group affection is the dominant force, the domain of politics might be distinctive.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, we note that increasing affective polarization can have grave ramifications, especially during times of political turmoil.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Social psychologists have suggested that contextual effects such as competition and threat alter the degree to which people punish opponents or reward team members (Brewer 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brewer 1999 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Partisanship appears to now compromise the norms and standards we apply to our elected representatives, and even leads partisans to call into question the legitimacy of election results, both of which threaten the very foundations of representative democracy.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In contrast, the current pervasive drip of scandal touching on the Trump administration has done little to weaken President Trump's popularity among Republicans, who accuse the press and investigative bodies of partisan bias (although see Montagnes et al. 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Montagnes et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded.
“Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded”
The paper relies on this without support.
Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to socialize across party lines.
“they are unwilling to socialize across party lines”
The paper relies on this without support.
Political campaigns recur frequently and last for many months (or even years) in the contemporary United States.
“Second, political campaigns-the formal occasions for expressing one's partisan identity-recur frequently and last for many months (or even years) in the contemporary United States.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most people prefer to be in agreeable relationships.
“most people prefer to be in agreeable relationships.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The rhetoric and actions of political leaders demonstrate that hostility directed at the opposition is acceptable and often appropriate.
“If anything, the rhetoric and actions of political leaders demonstrate that hostility directed at the opposition is acceptable and often appropriate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implicit attitudes are weak predictors of relevant behaviors.
“Of course, one can also critique measures of implicit attitudes, especially on the grounds that they are weak predictors of relevant behaviors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Partisanship is an important social identity in its own right.
“If partisanship is an important social identity in its own right, partisans should be averse to entering into close interpersonal relations with their opponents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Partisanship increasingly signals core values and worldview.
“Since partisanship increasingly signals core values and worldview, it is unsurprising that partisanship is used to screen social partners.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The modal member of both parties is a middle-aged, white, nonevangelical Christian.
“The modal member of both parties is a middle-aged, white, nonevangelical Christian, but this is not the image most people carry around in their heads when they think about Democrats and Republicans.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most people think in terms of partisan stereotypes: Democrats are urban minorities and young people, Republicans are older, wealthy, or evangelical Christians.
“Instead, most people think in terms of partisan stereotypes: Democrats are urban minorities and young people, Republicans are older, wealthy, or evangelical Christians.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No research has identified ways in which affective polarization drives both elite and mass ideological polarization.
“Fourth, no research that we are aware of has identified ways in which affective polarization drives both elite and mass ideological polarization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Comparativists have long recognized the importance of group identity to political behavior and attitudes, even if they have not used the language of social identity theory or affective polarization.
“Comparativists have long recognized the importance of group identity to political behavior and attitudes, even if they have not used the language of social identity theory or affective polarization.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When it comes to comparative research, however, scholars have customarily resorted to survey-based feeling thermometers.”
From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al. 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Another potential consequence of the spread of moral and emotional content online is increased polarization (Iyengar et al. 2019).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al. 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“no parece acertado afirmar que el extendido consumo de medios proactitudinales genere, por sí solo y como causa primaria, reacciones de hostilidad afectiva, sino más bien lo que hace es intensificar las actitudes e identidades que ya se encontraban de forma latente o atenuada en el individuo (Iyengar et al., 2019;Levendusky, 2013).”
From Política, uso de medios y polarización afectiva en España (2024) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al., 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite their limitations, feeling thermometers “have been asked for long periods of time, allowing researchers to document changes over time” (p. 134).”
From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al. 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“both groups have also developed increasingly hostile feelings toward each other (Iyengar et al., 2019).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al., 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Affective polarization, which reflects dislike of people in the opposing political party as compared to one’s own party, has most strikingly increased (43)”
From Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [43]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Existing studies have relied on various techniques to measure affective polarization (Iyengar et al. 2019, pp. 131–34).”
From Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective (2023) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al. 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 Iyengar et al. 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is well documented that affective polarization has substantially increased in the twenty-first century (Iyengar et al., 2019).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al., 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Finally, affective polarization (Fig. 1c) occurs when members of different social groups (or political parties) hold strong positive or negative attitudes (or feelings) about the groups themselves (not just their policy preferences49,79), owing to ‘in-party love’ and/or ‘out-party animus’80.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [49]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“la evidencia sobre sus efectos en la polarización afectiva es mixta o, en ocasiones, poco concluyente (Aelst et al., 2017;Iyengar et al., 2019).”
From Dieta mediática y polarización afectiva en un sistema mediático pluralista polarizado: un estudio longitudinal de España (2026) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al., 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“El análisis de los casos europeos y estadounidenses viene siendo abundante y predominante en la literatura sobre el tema (como Iyengar et al., 2019;o Garrido, Martínez y Mora, 2021).”
From “TE AMO, TE ODIO: DAME MÁS”*Polarización afectiva en la opinión pública argentina (2023) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al., 2019
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In Experiments 2 and 3, we leveraged Democrats’ and Republicans’ negative feelings toward one another and positive sentiments toward co-partisans (Iyengar et al., 2019) to assess the role of affect in attributions of bias within a polarized group context.”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Iyengar et al., 2019
In the citing paper
“These attitudes are mirrored in rising partisan antipathy; dislike toward members of the opposing ideology—a phenomenon known as “affective polarization” (3, 4, 5).”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Scholars have made the conceptual distinction between issue polarization—an ideological, policy-based political divide, and affective polarization, i.e. dislike, distrust, and general animosity of political partisans toward the other political side (5, 61, 62).”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Given the evidence on the growing polarization and partisan antipathy in the American public (5)”
From Troll and divide: the language of online polarization (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
The Social psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,577
The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time
Brewer, M. B. (1991) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 · Cited by 5,107
(1978) · Cited by 5,009
The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?
Brewer, M. B. (1999) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126 · Cited by 3,494
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,996 · cited 7×
“In 1960, only 4–5% were upset with their child marrying someone from the out party, but that figure had jumped to one-third of Democrats and one-half of Republicans by 2010 (Iyengar et al. 2012, pp. 416–18).”
InfluentialSelf-citationParty Systems and Voter Alignments. Cross National Perspectives
Birnbaum, P., Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1968) · Revue Française de Sociologie · doi:10.2307/3320570 · Cited by 2,802
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
Self-citationGreenstein, F. I., & Polsby, N. W. (1975) · Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. eBooks · Cited by 2,306
A Social Identity Theory of Leadership
Hogg, M. A. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1 · Cited by 2,298
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Klinkner P, 2004, Forum, 2
- Lelkes Y, 2018, Forum, 16
- Maccoby EE, 1954, Handb. Soc. Psychol., 1, 449
- Montagnes BP, 2018, J. Politics, 81, 327
- Nelson R. 2015. The war on partisanship: how fighting polarization became its own cause. National Journal, Oct. 30. https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/91684/war-partisanship?mref=home
- Panagopoulos C, 2016, Risky business: Does corporate political giving affect consumer behavior?
- Pew Research Center., 2017, The partisan divide on political values grows even wider
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 3,001–3,100 of 3,218
Social heterogeneity and political polarization
Tarabar, D. (2026) · Applied Economics Letters · doi:10.1080/13504851.2026.2677744
Partisan Hearts, Polarized Minds? Revisiting the Relationship Between Partisanship and Polarization
Bankert, A., & Zingher, J. N. (2026) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129261454646
Hsieh, P.-H. (2026) · Constitutional Political Economy · doi:10.1007/s10602-026-09517-3
Hostile Antagonistic Political Emotions
Osler, L., & Szanto, T. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009493741.005
Political Polarization on Social Media and Client Retention in Business-to-Business Firms
Bag, S., Routray, S., Rahman, M. S., Mishra, R., Singh, G., & Srivastava, S. K. (2026) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.411203
Thomason, K. K. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009493741.006
What Makes an Emotion Political?
Brogaard, B. “. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009493741.004
Emotional Politics and Political Emotions
Osler, L., & Szanto, T. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009493741.002
Enhancing joint ideal point estimation strategies with Twitter social networks and text data
Shen, Y., Bail, C. A., & Volfovsky, A. (2026) · Network Science · doi:10.1017/nws.2026.10028
Wisdom Foundations for a Civil Democratic Society and its Current Challenge
McKenna, B. J. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16951-8_22
Bread, Butter, and Bias: How News Coverage of Egg Price and Tariffs Polarizes U.S. Democracy?
Zhong, B., Zhu, Y., Wang, N., Wang, S., Xu, J., Yi, H., Lim, H. H., & Feng, G. C. (2026) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642261450672
Partisan polarization, populist attitudes, and anti-democratic behaviors
Kang, M., & Kim, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1743027
Mumma, S. (2026) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-026-10138-7
Leading in a time of turmoil: Political fragmentation, political conflict, and managerial turnover
Jacobsen, D. I. (2026) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2026.2681776
Hegewald, S. (2026) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-026-10160-9
Holmes, R. M., & Nickerson, J. A. (2026) · Strategic Management Review · doi:10.1108/smr-05-2023-0918
Ethnic voting and agenda framing under authoritarian reversal: a survey experiment in Myanmar
Jung, J., & Min, Z. M. (2026) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/01925121261438447
Anti-Racism Football Campaigns in Spain and England: Public Discourse and Polarization on X
Álvarez-Álvarez, A., & Kerkhof, P. (2026) · Communication & Sport · doi:10.1177/21674795261453828
Psycholinguistic patterns in digital discourse on the Israel–Palestine conflict
Karadağlı, K., & Bogatekin, M. A. (2026) · Opus uluslararası toplum araştırmaları dergisi · doi:10.26466/opusjsr.1864676
Asymmetric blame-shifting in the era of globalization
Cox, J., & Wang, A. H. (2026) · European Political Science · doi:10.1017/s1682098326100502
Overcoming impeachment hurdles: elite polarization, mass mobilization, and corruption scandals
Farag, M., Montini, I. C., & Schemm, P. (2026) · European Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s1755773926100484
Priming common European and democratic values does not reduce affective polarization
Canalejo-Molero, Á., Cicchi, L., da Silva, F. F., Garzia, D., Reiljan, A., & Trechsel, A. H. (2026) · European Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s1755773926100496
Engelhardt, A., Perez, E., Goldman, S. K., Huo, Y. J., Nteta, T. M., & Tropp, L. R. (2026) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129261458238 · Cited by 1
Chen, Q., Pamirzad, Q. H., & Nabil, N. A. (2026) · Journal of Information Technology & Politics · doi:10.1080/19331681.2026.2680315
Conspiracy Hashtags and Pro-Trump Performative Communication on Instagram
Anisin, A. (2026) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia7020121
Storytelling as a Means to Reduce Polarization on Climate Change: A Protocol Paper
Stephens, D., Tharmarajah, S., Browne, V., Sack, G., Bae, W.-B., & Rimal, R. (2026) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli14060122
Beyond Forgiveness: Accomplishing Moral Repair in Polarized WorkplacesPreprint
Spinosa, C., & Tsoukas, C. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6911316
Democratic satisfaction under affective polarization: Evidence from South Korea
Lee, H.-C. (2026) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/01925121261445357
When Politics Walk Into Work: Workplace Political Discourse and Organizational Consequences
Thompson, L. R. (2026) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/10564926261453826
Does medium matter? Political orientation and variability in scientific self-perceptions
Mann, M., & Schleifer, C. (2026) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625261449987
D’Alessio, S. J., & Stolzenberg, L. (2026) · American Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1007/s12103-026-09926-y
Partisan Social Norms, Racial Attitudes and Civic Discourse
West, E. A. (2026) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-026-10164-5
Politização da Burocracia de Nível de Rua
Rocha, V., Almendra, L., & Lotta, G. (2026) · Policy Making – Latin American Public Policy Review · doi:10.67312/policymaking.v1n1.a2 · Cited by 1
Greber, H., Strömbäck, J., & Lecheler, S. K. (2026) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/14648849261455957
Democratic Institutions Under Threat: Corrosive Frames, Internet News, and the U.S. Supreme Court
Wedeking, J., & Zilis, M. A. (2026) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2026.2682952
-Jena, A. S. (2026) · Global Media and Communication · doi:10.1177/17427665261458903
Shieh, M. (2026) · State Politics & Policy Quarterly · doi:10.1017/spq.2026.10026
Hunt, C. (2026) · The Conversation · doi:10.64628/aai.mytpgfvnq
Lv, M., & Yang, G. (2026) · Digital Scholarship in the Humanities · doi:10.1093/llc/fqag085 · Cited by 1
Perspective-Taking and Partisan Depolarization in the U.S. and Turkey
Paksoy, C., & Huddy, L. (2026) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-026-10175-2
Beam, M. A., Egbert, N., Smith, T. C., & Zhu, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2026.1864038
Kramon, E. (2026) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592725104313
Simonsson, O., Hendricks, P. S., Osika, W., & Goldberg, S. B. (2026) · Psychedelic Medicine · doi:10.1177/28314425261444135
Citizen–Elite Toxicity and Political Equality Online
Belschner, J., & Sandberg, L. (2026) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592726104976
Moral perspective-taking can reduce polarization around climate policy in the United States
Hurst, K. F., & Hurst, Z. M. (2026) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag225
Drerup, J., Gronostay, D., & Yacek, D. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197818138.003.0001
Cigánková, S., & Havlík, V. (2026) · Journal of Contemporary European Studies · doi:10.1080/14782804.2026.2694033
Grimalda, G., Murtin, F., Pipke, D., Putterman, L., & Sutter, M. (2026) · Economica · doi:10.1111/ecca.70062
Mosca, L., & Paxton, F. (2026) · European Journal of Communication · doi:10.1177/02673231261458935
Speaking freely or staying silent? Self-censorship and democratic discontent in Sweden
Persson, T., Widmalm, S., & Casselbrant, A. (2026) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2026.2658106
Zagała, Z. (2026) · Zeszyty Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II · doi:10.31743/znkul.19988
Tarasov, S. V. (2026) · Ученые записки Института психологи РАН · doi:10.38098/proceedings_2026_06_02_06
How Do Americans Explain Their Party Identification and Out-Partisan Animosity?
Fowler, A., Huber, G. A., Jin, R., & Orr, L. (2026) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfag044 · Cited by 1
Choosing between Alternative Concepts in a Worrisome World: Concern as a Criterion
Kaminitz, S. C. (2026) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s153759272610574x
A Critical Analysis of the Palantir Manifesto: Technology, Power, and the Future of the West
Sarungu, C., & Sarungu, L. (2026) · International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/iciss71466.2026.11715328
Vargiu, C., & Nai, A. (2026) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfag043
Li, X.-Y., Lee, Y.-S., & Kim, B. (2026) · Online information review (Print) · doi:10.1108/oir-04-2025-0223
Chen, X., Lin, J., & Zhong, Z. (2026) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2026.100351
Schemer, C., Langmann, K., Hasell, A., & Weeks, B. E. (2026) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2026.2699105
Schneider, D., Santos, S., Jardim, R. R.-A. J., & Correia, A. (2026) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd68734.2026.11581704
Elite affective polarization and government formation
Bäck, H., Carroll, R., Hellström, J., & Lindahl, J. (2026) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1017/s1475676526101480
Karlsson, E. (2026) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448251410509
Seeing Divides: Citizens’ Biased Perceptions of Political Cleavages
Lutz, P., & Does, S. (2026) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-026-10181-4 · Cited by 1
Emotions, social media, and politics: a scoping review
Kaskeleviciute, R., Nanz, A., Dietrich, I., & Matthes, J. (2026) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1093/anncom/wlag035
Discrete emotions towards leaders and partisan affect: Evidence from five multiparty democracies
Thomson, Z. A. (2026) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.15707
Measuring Judicial Appeasement of the United States Supreme Court
Snyder, D., & Pierce, C. (2026) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x261462118
Jin, R., & Lindsay, S. C. (2026) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129261468675
CEO compensation and the political environment
Panta, H., Rakowski, D. A., Sarkar, S. K., & Rasheed, A. A. (2026) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2026.116395
Wang, S., Su, Q., & Yao, Y. (2026) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/09579265261466772
Peter, A., Gberevbie, R., & Egbogun, F. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1870038
The Moral Polarization Scale (MPS)
Geppert, R., Lange, J., & Maes, J. (2026) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000953
Going Viral: Protests and Polarization in 1932 Hamburg
Caprettini, B., Caesmann, M., Voth, H., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2026) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1093/jeea/jvag039
Zubrzycka-Czarnecka, A., & Neddenriep, G. (2026) · Polish Political Science Review · doi:10.2478/ppsr-2026-0007
Berumen, S. A., & Ibarra, K. A. (2026) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia7030144
Mumuni, E., Bukari, G. A., & Mordzeh-Ekpampo, M. I. (2026) · African Quarterly Social Science Review · doi:10.51867/aqssr.3.3.10
Hofer, S. J., & Patten, J. N. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23580-0_1
Castaldo, A., Mauro, D. D., & Memoli, V. (2026) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2026.2701897
Institutional AI communication: publisher ideology and perceived algorithmic fairness
Chung, U. C., Kim, W., Lee, S. Y., Park, S. I., & Chang, J. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01266-1
Spinosa, C., & Tsoukas, C. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7153984
Education and Political Attitudes: The Power and Limits of Field Theory
Hooghe, L., Marks, G. W., Kamphorst, J., et al. (2026) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592726104824
The Language of Polarization: Hate Trumps Cooperation and Generosity Across Political LinesPreprint
Dimant, E. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7034778
Weak Social Ties as a Ward Against Political Polarization
Cerovac, I. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-27049-8_14
Semi-Parliamentarian Democratic Meritocracy Versus Representative Democracy
Tong, Z. (2026) · Res Publica · doi:10.1007/s11158-026-09785-8
Jung, S., Lin, Z., Stepniewski, J. M., Cortes, J. C., & Lei, Y. (2026) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2026.2704891
Sodoma, K. A., & Sharp, D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-27049-8_12
Martuza, J., & Aslan, E. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2026.104988
Oh, J., & Baek, K. (2026) · Asian Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/01292986.2026.2707528
Dragić, L., & Chan, M. (2026) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/19401612261468858
The Rationality of Affective Polarization
Kogelmann, B., & Wheatley, P. (2026) · Philosophy · doi:10.1017/s003181912610148x
Suryadi, K., Irayanti, I., Zahra, S. A., & Husni, J. (2026) · Discourse & Society · doi:10.1177/09579265261465819
The Polarization Problematic: Moral Panic, COVID-19, and Proof-of-Vaccination Passports in Canada
Zacharias, R., & Hier, S. P. (2026) · Deviant Behavior · doi:10.1080/01639625.2026.2711774
Beyond Single-Shot Designs: Repeated Treatments, Affective Polarization, and Democratic Norms
Jenke, L. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2026.10033
The potential public health consequences of “mRNA vaccine stigmatization” in the US
Motta, M. (2026) · Politics and the Life Sciences · doi:10.1017/pls.2026.10027
Yang, A., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2026) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x261470397
Nagel, A.-K. (2026) · Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft · doi:10.1515/zfr-2026-0012
Orchard, X., Saldaña, M., & Lazcano-Peña, D. (2026) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2026.2711092
Online Toxicity: Birthed from Polarization, Raised by Platforms
Giannouli, I., & Karadimitriou, A. (2026) · Platforms · doi:10.3390/platforms4030016
American Presidential Campaigns in the Attention Economy
Budak, C., Ladd, J. M., Josh Pasek, B., Singh, L., & Traugott, M. W. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781047779982
Beating Expectations: Turning Polarized Beliefs into Support for Sustainable Initiatives
Næss, O.-A. E. (2026) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2025.01277
Attitudinal impacts of polarized protests: experimental evidence from abortion protests in Poland
Nilsen, A. (2026) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1093/jopres/xjag066
Metadata
- Authors
- Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2019-05-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 129-146
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W2904152473
- Semantic Scholar
- 35266513e601aed2e2707e9263b2ccd466644b60
- Cited by
- 3,603
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 683 · 2025: 757 · 2024: 564 · 2023: 536 · 2022: 441 · 2021: 372 · 2020: 211 · 2019: 35
- FWCI
- 145.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Political Science (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
- affective polarization, partisanship, partisan animosity, social identity, partisan affect, Democrats and Republicans
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
