Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity

In the citing paper

“Autores como Mason (2018) sostienen que la creciente alineación entre identidades partidistas e identidades sociales intensifica la lógica de «nosotros frente a ellos», reforzando dinámicas de hostilidad afectiva y debilitando la deliberación pública.”

In the citing paper

“a) the grow-ing sorting of social identities and ideological positions within party groups, which reduces cross-cutting identities, increases intragroup homogeneity, and exacerbates the sensation of intergroup estrangement (Mason, 2018;Harteveld, 2021)”

In the citing paper

“These observations about the ways in which different types of political polarization amplify others are consistent with social identity theory, which emphasizes the tendency for people to sort themselves into distinct groups that compete for symbolic and material resources88–92.”

In the citing paper

“Consequently, the correlation between partisanship and ideology has risen from roughly r = 0.4 in 1988 to r = 0.6 in 2012 (refs.47,91).”

In the citing paper

“Group-justifying mechanisms, which are central to social identity theory88,90,91,94, involve group-serving tendencies to advance and maintain the interests and assumptions of the in-group against one or more out-groups (‘us versus them’).”

In the citing paper

“Processes such as self-categorization, in-group favouritism and out-group derogation contribute to political polarization by encouraging partisans to engage in various forms of motivated reasoning — including selective information exposure or avoidance and confirmation or disconfirmation biases — on behalf of their political party or ideological group3,39,91,94,141–144.”

In the citing paper

“A growing body of research suggests that the American public has become more polarized over the past few decades (1, 2).”