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 601–700 of 3,218
The (alleged) consequences of affective polarization: A survey experiment in nine democracies
Harteveld, E., Berntzen, L. E., Kokkonen, A., Kelsall, H., Linde, J., & Dahlberg, S. (2026) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1017/s1475676526101273 · Cited by 22
The perceived legitimacy of deliberative minipublics: taking the perspective of polarized citizens
van Dijk, L., Turkenburg, E., & Pow, J. (2023) · European Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s1755773922000649 · Cited by 24
Bright, L. K. (2023) · Journal of Political Philosophy · doi:10.1111/jopp.12290 · Cited by 19
Rovamo, H., Pettersson, K., & Sakki, I. (2023) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12917 · Cited by 16
What one is not: a new scale to measure Negative Party Identity in multiparty systems
Mayer, S. J., & Russo, L. (2023) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-023-01793-7 · Cited by 21
Internet-based micro-identities as a driver of societal disintegration
Kossowska, M., Kłodkowski, P., Siewierska-Chmaj, A., Guinote, A., Kessels, U., Moyano, M., & Strömbäck, J. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02441-z · Cited by 22
Marie, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2024) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2024.2363542 · Cited by 22
Myrick, J. G., & Chen, J. (2021) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10776990211008534 · Cited by 16
VanDusky‐Allen, J., Utych, S., & Catalano, M. (2021) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129211056374 · Cited by 16
Adams, K., & Kreiss, D. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108950954 · Cited by 17
Twitter and Affective Polarisation: Following Political Leaders in Spain
Rodríguez, J. L., & Torcal, M. (2022) · South European Society & Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2022.2047554 · Cited by 23
Affective forecasting in elections: A socio-communicative perspective
Tenenboim‐Weinblatt, K., Baden, C., Aharoni, T., & Overbeck, M. (2022) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac007 · Cited by 20
The Political Polarization of Corporate AmericaPreprint
Kempf, E., Fos, V., & Tsoutsoura, M. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4154770 · Cited by 22
Chan, S., & Landgrave, M. G. (2023) · Politics Groups and Identities · doi:10.1080/21565503.2023.2266710 · Cited by 16
Han, S. (2025) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2529360 · Cited by 17
Bojić, L., Ilić, V., Prodanović, V., & Vuković, V. (2025) · Chinese Political Science Review · doi:10.1007/s41111-025-00326-x · Cited by 21
Urben, H. A., & Golby, J. (2020) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197535493.003.0008 · Cited by 16
Actual and perceived polarization on independence-unification views in Taiwan
Huang, C., & Kuo, T.-C. (2022) · Asian Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/01292986.2021.2022174 · Cited by 15
McKee, S. C., Evans, H. K., & Clark, J. H. (2021) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x211041922 · Cited by 15
Newcomers, Novices, Censors, and Seasoned Advocates Navigate Risky Texts with Critical Literacy
Wessel‐Powell, C., & Bentley, H. (2022) · The New Educator · doi:10.1080/1547688x.2021.2008567 · Cited by 17
Miklikowska, M., Rekker, R., & Kudrnáč, A. (2022) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2022.2032502 · Cited by 16
Through the ideology of the beholder: how ideology shapes perceptions of partisan groups
Homola, J., Rogowski, J. C., Sinclair, B., Torres, M., Tucker, P., & Webster, S. W. (2022) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2022.4 · Cited by 15
Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2022) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2022.03.008 · Cited by 23
Chipidza, W., & Yan, J. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24705 · Cited by 16
Kim, S. S., & Zilinsky, J. (2022) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09816-z · Cited by 20
«LO POLÍTICO COMO ALGO PERSONAL»: UNA REVISIÓN TEÓRICA SOBRE LA POLARIZACIÓN AFECTIVA
Martínez, J. M. R., & CRESPO-MARTÍNEZ, I. (2023) · Revista de ciencia política · doi:10.4067/s0718-090x2023005000102 · Cited by 31
Thinking outside the ballot box
Costello, T. H., Zmigrod, L., & Tasimi, A. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.03.012 · Cited by 17
Sincere or Motivated? Partisan Bias in Advice-taking
Zhang, Y., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.28 · Cited by 16
Ton, G. M., van Zomeren, M., & Stroebe, K. E. (2023) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2990 · Cited by 15
Issues, Groups, or Idiots? Comparing Theories of Partisan Stereotypes
Myers, C. D. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad038 · Cited by 18
Preuss, S., & Max, M. M. (2023) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2023.101510 · Cited by 15
Schieferdecker, D., Joly, P., & Faas, T. (2024) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edae009 · Cited by 16
Hopkins, D. J., & Gorton, T. (2024) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12845 · Cited by 15
Disagreement reduces overconfidence and prompts exploration in young children
Langenhoff, A. F., Srinivasan, M., & Engelmann, J. M. (2024) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.14098 · Cited by 15
Redefining Academic Safe Space for Responsible Management Education
Martineau, J. T., & Cyr, A.-A. (2024) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-024-05690-3 · Cited by 19
Attraction to politically extreme users on social media
Zimmerman, F., Bailey, D. D., Murić, G., Ferrara, E., Schöne, J. P., Willer, R., Halperin, E., Navajas, J., Gross, J. J., & Goldenberg, A. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae395 · Cited by 19
The evolution of similarity-biased social learning
Smaldino, P. E., & Velilla, A. P. (2025) · Evolutionary Human Sciences · doi:10.1017/ehs.2024.46 · Cited by 23
Borrelli, D., Iandoli, L., Ramírez-Márquez, J. E., & Lipizzi, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2021.3094775 · Cited by 20
Dinkelberg, A., O’Sullivan, D. J. P., Quayle, M., & MacCarron, P. (2021) · Advances in Complex Systems · doi:10.1142/s0219525921500065 · Cited by 16
Political coherence and certainty as drivers of interpersonal liking over and above similarity
Zimmerman, F., Garbulsky, G., Dan Ariely, C., Sigman, M., & Navajas, J. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abk1909 · Cited by 14
In-Party Like, Out-Party Dislike and Propensity to Vote in Spain
Serani, D. (2022) · South European Society & Politics · doi:10.1080/13608746.2022.2047541 · Cited by 15
A New Era of Electoral Instability
Schmitt‐Beck, R., Roßteutscher, S., Schoen, H., Weßels, B., & Wolf, C. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198847519.003.0001 · Cited by 15
Political Orientation and Adherence to Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in ItalyPreprint
Barbieri, P. N., & Bonini, B. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3640324 · Cited by 15
Misperceptions About OthersPreprint
Bursztyn, L., & Yang, D. Y. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3909951 · Cited by 15
Tella, R. D., Gálvez, R. H., & Schargrodsky, E. (2021) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w29458 · Cited by 17
The Effects of Target Characteristics on Public Support for Hate Speech LawsPreprint
Rasmussen, J. S. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/j4nuc · Cited by 21
Nair, K., Anderson, R. A., Spelman, T., Mosleh, M., & Kouchaki, M. (2026) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000495 · Cited by 15
How aggregated opinions shape beliefs
Oktar, K., & Lombrozo, T. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00398-7 · Cited by 17
Why more social interactions lead to more polarization in societies
Stefan Thurner, A., Hofer, M., & Korbel, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2517530122 · Cited by 22
Ranking for engagement: How social media algorithms fuel misinformation and polarization
Germano, F., Gómez, V., & Sobbrio, F. (2026) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2026.105589 · Cited by 14
Iannelli, L., Biagi, B., & Meleddu, M. (2021) · The Communication Review · doi:10.1080/10714421.2021.1972720 · Cited by 13
Polarization in Black and White
Enders, A. M., & Thornton, J. R. (2022) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfac010 · Cited by 15
Affective Polarization of a Protest and a Counterprotest: Million MAGA March v. Million Moron March
Shahin, S. (2022) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642221091212 · Cited by 14
Taylor, B. J., Kunkle, K., & Watts, K. (2022) · Higher Education Policy · doi:10.1057/s41307-022-00286-w · Cited by 18
Friend or foe? When political elites evaluate foreign leaders
Otero, J. M. R., & Bohigues, A. (2022) · Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais · doi:10.1590/3710904/2022 · Cited by 14
Öhberg, P., & Cassel, F. (2023) · Scandinavian Political Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12258 · Cited by 14
In different worlds: The contributions of polarization and platforms to partisan (mis)perceptions
Overgaard, C. S. B., & Collier, J. R. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231176551 · Cited by 14
Bipartisanship and US Foreign Policy
Tama, J. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745663.001.0001 · Cited by 17
Civic Literacy: Reimagining a Role for Libraries
Kranich, N. (2023) · The Library Quarterly · doi:10.1086/727809 · Cited by 19
Kelm, O., Neumann, T., Behrendt, M., Brenneis, M., Gerl, K., Marschall, S., Meißner, F., Stefan Harmeling, B., Vowe, G., & Ziegele, M. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100343 · Cited by 31
Who polarizes parliament? Partisan hostility in Norwegian legislative debates
Røed, M., Bäck, H., & Carroll, R. (2023) · Party Politics · doi:10.1177/13540688231215003 · Cited by 15
Differentiating the sources of post‐election partisan affect warming
Gidron, N., & Sheffer, L. (2024) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12641 · Cited by 14
Moving toward the Median: Compulsory Voting and Political Polarization
Oprea, A., Martin, L. E. S., & Brennan, G. (2024) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055423001399 · Cited by 18
Wang, R., Thimmanayakanapalya, S. S., & Ophir, Y. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241237765 · Cited by 17
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2024) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642241242056 · Cited by 17
Holliday, D. E., Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2414689121 · Cited by 14
Self-citationMann, C. B., Gronke, P. W., & Adona, N. (2020) · American Politics Research · doi:10.1177/1532673x20922525 · Cited by 12
Linked fate, #MeToo, and political participation
Jenkins, S., Poloni-Staudinger, L. M., & Strachan, J. C. (2021) · Politics Groups and Identities · doi:10.1080/21565503.2021.1908371 · Cited by 14
Schmitt‐Beck, R., Roßteutscher, S., Schoen, H., Weßels, B., & Wolf, C. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198847519.001.0001 · Cited by 15
The virus of polarization: online debates about Covid-19 in Germany
Schmid, F., Treib, O., & Eckardt, F. (2022) · Political Research Exchange · doi:10.1080/2474736x.2022.2150087 · Cited by 20
Thürmer, J. L., & McCrea, S. M. (2023) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/13684302221147005 · Cited by 14
Morris, D. S. M. (2021) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/ssqu.13053 · Cited by 14
Learning from Shared News: When Abundant Information Leads to Belief Polarization
Bowen, R., Dmitriev, D., & Galperti, S. (2021) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w28465 · Cited by 15
The Subversion Dilemma: Why Voters Who Cherish Democracy Participate in Democratic BackslidingPreprint
Braley, A., Lenz, G., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/my987 · Cited by 14
Reflections on a Legacy: Thoughts from Scholars about Agenda-Setting Past and Future
Schmierbach, M., McCombs, M., Valenzuela, S., Dearing, J. W., Гуо, Л., Iyengar, S., Kiousis, S. K., Kosicki, G. M., Meraz, S., Scheufele, D. A., et al. (2022) · Mass Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2022.2067725 · Cited by 14
Self-citationPolitical Divide and Partisan Portfolio DisagreementPreprint
Pan, Y., PIKULINA, E. S., Siegel, S., & Wang, T. Y. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4381330 · Cited by 14
Chen, H., Song, Y., & Guo, J. (2024) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/00936502241285069 · Cited by 30
Rasul, M. E., Ahmed, S., Cho, J., & Gil‐López, T. (2025) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2025.2495803 · Cited by 19
Howard, K. A., Cervone, D., & Motyl, M. S. (2021) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672211028141 · Cited by 17
Heinzelmann, N. C., & Tran, V. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-022-00616-9 · Cited by 13
Willnat, L., Ogan, C., & Shi, J. (2023) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2023.2173196 · Cited by 13
United States politicians’ tone became more negative with 2016 primary campaigns
Külz, J., Spitz, A., Abu-Akel, A. M., Günnemann, S., & West, R. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-36839-1 · Cited by 17
Myrick, R., & Wang, C. (2023) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/726926 · Cited by 16
The Making of a Crisis: Migration and Polarization in the French Press
Reddy, M., & Thiollet, H. (2023) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642231183274 · Cited by 13
Territorial disputes and affective polarization
Balcells, L., Daniels, L.-A., & Kuo, A. G. (2023) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12640 · Cited by 14
de Jong, J. F. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-023-00051-8 · Cited by 17
Huang, C., Bian, H., & Han, W. (2024) · Chaos Solitons & Fractals · doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2024.114544 · Cited by 14
The Epistemic Role of Diversity in Juries: An Agent-Based Model
Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Holman, B., Jung, J., & Berger, W. J. (2024) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.5304 · Cited by 13
Varieties of Values: Moral Values Are Uniquely Divisive
Jung, J., & Clifford, S. (2024) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055424000443 · Cited by 16
The Unlikely Survival of Erdoğan in Turkey's May 2023 Elections
Çarkoğlu, A. (2024) · JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · doi:10.1111/jcms.13655 · Cited by 13
The role of norms as promoters of social change
González, R. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.13025 · Cited by 26
A taste for government employment also rests on its political flavor
Gilad, S., Sulitzeanu‐Kenan, R., & Levi‐Faur, D. (2024) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13889 · Cited by 15
Tausch, N., Birtel, M. D., Górska, P., Bode, S., & Rocha, C. M. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00146-w · Cited by 17
Understanding reaction to corporate activism: The moderating role of polarization
Braga, L. D., Grinstein, A., Tardin, M., & Perin, M. G. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae313 · Cited by 16
You, Z. T., & Lee, S. W. S. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae286 · Cited by 18
News source bias and sentiment on social media
Knutson, B. D., Hsu, T. W., Ko, M., & Tsai, J. L. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305148 · Cited by 18
The Political Economy of Zero‐Sum Thinking
Ali, S. N., Mihm, M., & Siga, L. (2025) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta22474 · Cited by 14
Bhanot, S. P., & Hopkins, D. J. (2020) · Journal of Behavioral Public Administration · doi:10.30636/jbpa.32.178 · Cited by 17
Gonçalves, J., Pereira, S., & da Silva, M. T. (2020) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884920958367 · Cited by 13
Ertan, G., Çarkoğlu, A., & Aytaç, S. E. (2021) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2021.05.004 · Cited by 17
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
