PARTY POLARIZATION IN AMERICAN POLITICS: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences
Abstract
▪ Abstract Recent commentary points to clear increases in ideological polarization between the major American political parties. We review the theoretical and empirical literature on party polarization and partisan change. We begin by comparing the current period both to earlier political eras and to theories of partisan change. We argue that in the current period the parties have grown increasingly divided on all the major policy dimensions in American politics—a process that we term conflict extension. We discuss various perspectives on increases in polarization between the parties in government, the parties in the electorate, and the parties' activists, and we consider the causal links between polarization at each of these levels. We consider whether American society itself, and not just the parties and their identifiers, has become increasingly polarized. Finally, we discuss the consequences of growing party polarization for American political life.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These results align with the noted demise of moderate congressional legislators in recent decades.
“These results align with the noted demise of moderate congressional legislators in recent decades (e.g., Layman et al. 2006).”
From Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure (2020) · cites this paper as Layman et al. 2006
There is a strong consensus among scholars of politics in the USA that liberal and conservative political elites have grown increasingly polarized over the past few decades.
“For example, there is a strong consensus among scholars of politics in the USA that liberal and conservative political elites (including members of Congress, party activists, donors and judicial appointees) have grown increasingly polarized over the past few decades27–34.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
The extent to which elite-level polarization has influenced the belief systems of ordinary citizens remains a matter of debate.
“At the same time, the extent to which elite-level polarization has influenced the belief systems of ordinary citizens remains a matter of debate8,27,35–40.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
Partisanship exacerbates issue-based conflict.
“Furthermore, partisanship exacerbates issue-based conflict27, and party activists are capable of pushing candidates to take more extreme positions on issues over time37.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right.
“Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right10,27,31,34,37,72,342,343).”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 110 · Cited by 827
- Authors
- Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Florida State University (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2006-06-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83-110
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W2131244513
- Cited by
- 827
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 25.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- partisan polarization, partisan change, ideological polarization, American political parties, party activists, social polarization, American politics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
