PreprintCited by 10Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Partisan Antipathy and the Erosion of Democratic Norms

Open access
Landry, Alexander, Finkel, Eli, Hoyle, Rick H., Druckman, James, Van Bavel, Jay Joseph·2024

Abstract

Does partisan antipathy undermine democracy? Over the past decade, claims of such an effect have pervaded both popular and scholarly discourse—to the point where the link has become widely accepted as an article of faith. But an impressive stream of new studies has raised credible doubts about whether such an effect actually exists. In the present report, even as we replicate the null effects in that nascent literature, we demonstrate that partisan antipathy, when properly conceptualized and operationalized, does indeed predict antidemocratic tendencies. Leveraging cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental methods, including a study conducted during America’s 2022 Midterm Elections, we developed and validated a measure of political sectarianism (a blend of othering, aversion, and moralization toward opposing partisans), which robustly predicted antidemocratic tendencies. In contrast, the influential construct of affective polarization (assessed in terms of cold feelings toward opposing partisans) did not. These findings have important implications for theory and measurement in the social sciences, for understanding democratic erosion, and for applied efforts to bolster American democracy by bridging partisan divides.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/ahgy6

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Drutman, L. (2020). Breaking the two-party doom loop: The case for multiparty democracy in America. Oxford University Press, USA.
  2. Graham, M. H., & Svolik, M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392-409.
  3. Claassen, C. (2020). Does public support help democracy survive? American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 118-134.
  4. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
  5. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
  6. Holliday, D. E., Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (in press). Uncommon and bipartisan: Anti-democratic attitudes in the American public. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  7. Kingzette, J., Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2021). How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(2), 663-677.
  8. Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L., & Westwood, S. J. (2023). Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. American Journal of Political Science, 67, 808-828.
  10. Voelkel, J. G., Chu, J., Stagnaro, M. N., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Pink, S. L., ... & Willer, R. (2023a). Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti- democratic attitudes. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 55-64.
  11. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012, p. 406). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.
  12. Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., ... & Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533-536.
  13. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  14. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14864-14872. References
  16. Tay, L., & Jebb, A. T. (2018). Establishing construct continua in construct validation: The process of continuum specification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918775707 · DOI
  17. Reise, S. P., Mansolf, M., & Haviland, M. G. (2023). Bifactor measurement models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 328-348). Guilford Press.
  18. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486-507.
  22. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195-216). Scientific Software International.
  23. Widaman, K. F., & Olivera-Aguilar, M. (2023). Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed., pp. 367-384). Guilford Press.
  24. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Eid, M., Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Heene, M. (2017). Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083 .758 -.01 -0.42 1326 .671 Item 2: I feel distant from the typical Republican. Affective Polarization -.02 -0.69 1326 .492 Political Sectarianism .03 .331 .04 1.16 1326 .247 Item · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landry, A., Finkel, E., Hoyle, R. H., Druckman, J., & Van Bavel, J. J.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Published
2024-01-25
OpenAlex
W4391228217
Cited by
10
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
sectarian politics, affective polarization, democratic backsliding, othering, moralization, 2022 midterm elections, partisan divide, democratic norms

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