CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMisinformation and Its ImpactsAcademic Freedom and Politics

Political Polarization Over Factual Beliefs

Open access
Rekker, Roderik·2022·Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments
DOI 10.4324/9781003111474-12
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent decades have seen increasing levels of political polarization. Whereas the literature has commonly distinguished between ideological and affective polarization, this chapter proposes that a third core pillar should be added to this taxonomy because citizens are divided not only in their attitudes and their feelings toward each other, but also in their factual perceptions of reality. For example, the vast majority (84%) of American citizens who identify as a Democrat accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, but less than half (43%) of Republicans share this position. Similar partisan differences exist in factual beliefs about key issues such as the size of the immigrant population and the level of income inequality. Nearly any political attitude is likely to be accompanied by at least some factual assumptions, even if citizens are not quite sure about these beliefs or when they are not even consciously aware of them. This chapter argues that factual belief polarization may be viewed both as a consequence and a potential cause of other types of polarization. Although the evidence for the latter is still limited and inconclusive, it is easy to imagine how partisan divides in factual perceptions could fuel ideological disagreements and political hostility.

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 · 10.4324/9781003111474-12

Cites

10 of 10 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: 56

  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542-555.
  2. Alba, R., Rumbaut, R. G., & Marotz, K. (2005). A distorted nation: Perceptions of racial/ ethnic group sizes and attitudes toward immigrants and other minorities. Social Forces, 84(2), 901-919.
  3. Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. University of Chicago Press.
  4. Blee, K. M., & Creasap, K. A. (2010). Conservative and right-wing movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 269-286.
  5. Bobzien, L. (2020). Polarized perceptions, polarized preferences? Understanding the relationship between inequality and preferences for redistribution. Journal of European Social Policy, 30(2), 206-224.
  6. Carothers, T., & O'Donohue, A. (Eds.). (2019). Democracies divided: The global challenge of political polarization. Brookings Institution Press.
  7. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808-822.
  8. Coleman, J. J. (1997). The decline and resurgence of congressional party conflict. The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 165-184.
  9. Cruces, G., Perez-Truglia, R., & Tetaz, M. (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribu- tion and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100-112.
  10. Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press.
  11. Davis, R., & Owen, D. M. (1998). New media and American politics. Oxford University Press.
  12. Dalton, R. J., & Berning, C. C. (2021). Ideological polarization and far-right parties in europe. In H. U. Brinkmann, & K. Reuband (Eds.), Rechtspopulismus in Deutschland -Wahlverhalten in Zeiten politischer polarisierung. Springer Verlag.
  13. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
  14. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have American's social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690-755.
  15. Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4-23.
  16. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79.
  17. García-Sánchez, E., Osborne, D., Willis, G. B., Rodríguez, & Bailón, R. (2020). Attitudes towards redistribution and the interplay between perceptions and beliefs about inequal- ity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 111-136.
  18. Garrett, R. K., Long, J. A., & Jeong, M. S. (2019). From partisan media to misperception: Affective polarization as mediator. Journal of Communication, 69(5), 490-512.
  19. Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167-187.
  20. Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2018). How ideology, economics and institutions shape affective polarization in democratic polities. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.
  21. Haas, M. (2018). Why democracies flounder and fail: Remedying mass society politics. Springer.
  22. Harteveld, E. (2021). Fragmented foes: Affective polarization in the multiparty context of the Netherlands. Electoral Studies, in press.
  23. Herda, D. (2010). How many immigrants? Foreign-born population innumeracy in Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(4), 674-695.
  24. Herda, D. (2013). Too many immigrants? Examining alternative forms of immigrant pop- ulation innumeracy. Sociological Perspectives, 56(2), 213-240.
  25. Hjerm, M. (2007). Do numbers really count? Group threat theory revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(8), 1253-1275.
  26. Hopkins, D. J., Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2019). The muted consequences of correct informa- tion about immigration. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315-320.
  27. Howell, W. G., & West, M. R. (2009). Educating the public. Education Next, 9(3), 41-47.
  28. Huber, R. A. (2020). The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environmental Politics, 29(6), 959-982.
  29. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspec- tive on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.
  30. Jørgensen, F. J., & Osmundsen, M. (2020). Correcting citizens' misperceptions about non-western immigrants: Corrective information, interpretations, and policy opinions. Journal of Experimental Political Science, Online first.
  31. Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2018). Lethal mass partisanship: Prevalence, correlates, and electoral contingencies. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.
  32. Kuhn, A. (2019). The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality. European Journal of Political Economy, 59, 331-344.
  33. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790-816.
  34. Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In H. Lasswell, & D. Lerner (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method (pp. 1-15). Stanford University Press.
  35. Jocker, T., Rekker, R., Lange, de, & Brug, V. W. (2021). Growing up in a polarized political Lawrence, E. D., & Sides, J. (2014). The consequences of political innumeracy. Research & Politics, 1(2), 1-8.
  36. Lee, N., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Flynn, D. J. (2021). More accurate, but no less polarized: Comparing the factual beliefs of government officials and the public. British Journal of Political Science, Online first.
  37. Lelkes, Y. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 392-410.
  38. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polari- zation. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111-131.
  39. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
  41. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misper- ceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
  42. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  43. Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2021). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 999-1015.
  44. Pasek, J., Sood, G., & Krosnick, J. A. (2015). Misinformed about the affordable care act? Leveraging certainty to assess the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 660-673.
  45. Rekker, R. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352-368.
  46. Rooduijn, M., Van der Brug, W., & De Lange, S. L. (2016). Expressing or fuelling dis- content? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies, 43(1), 32-40.
  47. Scotto, T. J., Reifler, J., Hudson, D., & van Heerde-Hudson, J. (2017). We spend how much? Misperceptions, innumeracy, and support for the foreign aid in the United States and Great Britain. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 4(2), 119-128.
  48. Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2008). Foreigners' impact on European societies: Public views and perceptions in a cross-national comparative perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49(1), 5-29.
  49. Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., Tov, A. Y., & Schmidt, P. (2004). Population size, perceived threat, and exclusion: A multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social Science Research, 33(4), 681-701.
  50. Sides, J. (2016). Stories or science? Facts, frames, and policy attitudes. American Politics Research, 44(3), 387-414.
  51. Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). European Opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 477-504.
  52. Trump, K. S. (2018). Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income dif- ferences. British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 929-952.
  53. Van der Brug, W., & Rekker, R. (2021). Dealignment, realignment and generational dif- ferences in the Netherlands. West European Politics, 44(4), 776-801.
  54. Van der Meer, T. W. G. (2017). Voorbij de politieke crisis. Sociologie, 13(1), 109-124.
  55. Van Kessel, S., Sajuria, J., & Van Hauwaert, S. M. (2021). Informed, uninformed or mis- informed? A cross-national analysis of populist party supporters across European democ- racies. West European Politics, 44(3), 585-610.
  56. Westwood, S. J., Iyengar, S., Walgrave, S., Leonisio, R., Miller, L., & Strijbis, O. (2018). The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research, 57(2), 333-354.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rekker, R.
Corresponding author
Rekker, Roderik
ORCID
Rekker, Roderik
Venue
Knowledge Resistance in High-Choice Information Environments
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2022-05-23
Pages
222-236
DOI
10.4324/9781003111474-12
OpenAlex
W4281625783
Cited by
13
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
26.63
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
Keywords
political polarization, factual beliefs, ideological polarization, affective polarization, partisan differences, climate change skepticism, scientific consensus

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