Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
This includes opposition to compromise across parties, supporting more extreme positions on public policy, and evaluating the performance of public officials based on their partisan affiliations rather than their actions.
“This includes opposition to compromise across parties, supporting more extreme positions on public policy, and evaluating the performance of public officials based on their partisan affiliations rather than their actions (Druckman et al., 2024;Levendusky, 2023).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Levendusky, 2023
These developments have the capacity to exacerbate all three types of polarization, insofar as individuals bring their own political attitudes and beliefs into alignment with those who are spatially proximate and tend to form negative impressions, including misperceptions, about those with whom they rarely interact.
“These developments have the capacity to exacerbate all three types of polarization, insofar as individuals bring their own political attitudes and beliefs into alignment with those who are spatially proximate329,331 and tend to form negative impressions, including misperceptions, about those with whom they rarely interact332.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [332]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not
Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L., & Westwood, S. J. (2023) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12719 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Self-citationA review and provocation: On polarization and platforms
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231161880 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Levendusky, M.
- Corresponding author
- Levendusky, Matthew
- Venue
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2023
- OpenAlex
- W4294690198
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 20.08
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Diverse Philosophical and Cultural Studies
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Cross-Cultural and Social Analysis
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