Cited by 70Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracyMedia Influence and Politics

Partisan Hostility and American Democracy

Druckman, James N., Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, Levendusky, Matthew, Ryan, John Barry·2024·University of Chicago Press eBooks

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7208/chicago/9780226833668.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Highly polarized partisans support leaders from their party regardless of their actual performance regarding COVID-19.

    “Along these lines, Druckman et al. (2024) show highly polarized partisans support leaders from their party regardless of their actual performance regarding COVID-19.”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Druckman et al. (2024)

  • 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 Druckman et al., 2024

  • Druckman et al. (2024) suggest that those with higher levels of affective polarization have an increased likelihood of engaging in partisan-motivated reasoning.

    “Druckman et al. (2024) suggest that those with higher levels of affective polarization have an increased likelihood of engaging in partisan-motivated reasoning.”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Druckman et al. (2024)

  • Political sectarianism better captures strong feelings that lead partisans to sacrifice democratic norms, while affective polarization captures milder forms of affect influencing social relationships.

    “The former does a better job enveloping strong feelings that lead partisans to sacrifice democratic norms such as checks and balances or obeying unfavorable court rulings.11 The latter captures milder forms of affect that influence social relationships, such as willingness to work with members of the other party (e.g., Broockman et al., 2023;Lelkes & Westwood, 2017) and cue-taking in terms of”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2024

  • Nearly all work on affective polarization excludes pure independents.

    “Nearly all work on affective polarization excludes pure independents (including our own work, see Druckman et al., 2024).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Druckman et al., 2024

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B.
Venue
University of Chicago Press eBooks
Published
2024
OpenAlex
W4386828425
Cited by
69
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
FWCI
378.47
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
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 › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
partisan hostility, political polarization, American democracy, partisanship, political conflict

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