Cited by 363Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologySocial Media and Politics

Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide

Westfall, Jacob, Van Boven, Leaf, Chambers, John R., Judd, Charles M.·2015·Perspectives on Psychological Science

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

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691615569849

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 )”
  • 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.”
  • Perceived polarization predicts political engagement.

    “and perceived polarization predicts political engagement.”
  • 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.”

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
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