The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Once categorical boundaries between ‘us and them’ are drawn, a whole host of destructive social psychological processes may kick in, including stereotyping, prejudice, in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and even dehumanization3,55,93–95.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [93]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
Testing theories of political persuasion using AI
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Lyman, A., Olcott, J., Pond, J., & Wingate, D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2412815122 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Kinder, D. R., & Kam, C. D.
- ORCID
- Kam, Cindy D.
- Venue
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2009
- OpenAlex
- W4255413972
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 16.54
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Leadership, Human Resources, Global Affairs
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
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
