Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide
Abstract
An important component of political polarization in the United States is the degree to which ordinary people perceive political polarization. We used over 30 years of national survey data from the American National Election Study to examine how the public perceives political polarization between the Democratic and Republican parties and between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. People in the United States consistently overestimate polarization between the attitudes of Democrats and Republicans. People who perceive the greatest political polarization are most likely to report having been politically active, including voting, trying to sway others' political beliefs, and making campaign contributions. We present a 3-factor framework to understand ordinary people's perceptions of political polarization. We suggest that people perceive greater political polarization when they (a) estimate the attitudes of those categorized as being in the "opposing group"; (b) identify strongly as either Democrat or Republican; and (c) hold relatively extreme partisan attitudes-particularly when those partisan attitudes align with their own partisan political identity. These patterns of polarization perception occur among both Democrats and Republicans.
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?
People tend to overestimate the degree of polarization between political groups.
“People also tend to overestimate the degree of polarization (Levendusky & Malhotra 2016, Westfall et al. 2015) and animosity (Mernyk et al. 2022, Ruggeri et al. 2021) between political groups, which may be exacerbated by the abundance of divisive content they see online.”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Westfall et al. 2015
Categorization emphasizes perceived differences between parties, with the opposing group's position always exaggerated more than the ingroup's position.
“According to the results of Westfall et al. (2015:149-151), categorization emphasizes perceived differences between parties (i.e., the opposing group's position is always exaggerated more than the ingroup's position 3 )”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Westfall et al. (2015:149-151)
The size of actual polarization in the U.S. was medium, but perceived polarization exceeded it by a factor of two.
“Previously, Westfall et al. (2015) found that the size of actual polarization in the U.S. was medium, but the perceived polarization exceeded it by a factor of two.”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Westfall et al. (2015)
Perceived polarization predicts political engagement.
“and perceived polarization predicts political engagement.”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Westfall et al. (2015:149-151)
Partisans might represent their adversaries as more obstructionist, more ideologically extreme, more prejudiced against the in-group, or more violent than they actually are.
“Partisans might also represent their adversaries as more obstructionist95, more ideologically extreme122,151–153, more prejudiced against the in-group55, or more violent154 than they actually are.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [151]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 363
- Authors
- Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R., & Judd, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder
- Saint Louis University (US)
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-158
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W3122889950
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 149.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- University of Oregon
- University of Colorado Boulder
- 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
- political polarization, perceived polarization, partisan attitudes, partisan identity, Democrats and Republicans, presidential candidates, political action, American National Election Studies, public opinion
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Group Processes, Humans, Models, Psychological, Perception, Politics, Self Concept, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review