Diamond, L., Drutman, L., Lindberg, T., Kalmoe, N. P. & Mason, L. Opinion: Americans increasingly believe violence is justified if the other side wins. Politico (1 October, 2020).
Drutman, L. Breaking the Two-party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).
Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020). This article discusses the causes and consequences of a concept related to affective polarization — political sectarianism — which involves othering, aversion and moralization.
Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. Large majority of the public views prosecution of capitol rioters as ‘very important’. Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/03/18/large-majority-of-the-public-views-prosecution-of-capitol-rioters-as-very-important/ (2021).
Sartori, G. Parties And Party Systems: A Framework For Analysis Vol. 1 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976).
Fiorina, M. P. The decline of collective responsibility in American politics. Daedalus 109, 25–45 (1980).
Heltzel, G. & Laurin, K. Polarization in America: two possible futures. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 179–184 (2020).
Google Scholar
Baldassarri, D. & Gelman, A. Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am. J. Sociol. 114, 408–446 (2008).
Google Scholar
Abramowitz, A. I. Transformation and polarization: the 2008 presidential election and the new American electorate. Elect. Stud. 29, 594–603 (2010).
Google Scholar
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. Polarized America: the Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (MIT Press, 2016).
McCoy, J., Rahman, T. & Somer, M. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic politics. Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 16–42 (2018).
Google Scholar
Vegetti, F. The political nature of ideological polarization: the case of Hungary. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 681, 78–96 (2019).
Google Scholar
Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L. & Westwood S. J. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Am. J. Polit. Sci. (in the press).
Gollwitzer, A. et al. Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1186–1197 (2020). This analysis of geotracking data of 15 million smartphones per day indicated that people in conservative and Republican (versus liberal and Democratic) counties exhibited 14% less physical distancing in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and partisan and ideological differences in physical distancing predicted higher infection rates and increased mortality in pro-Trump counties.
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 28–38 (2021). This study shows that levels of partisan animosity measured before the COVID-19 pandemic affected policy beliefs during the pandemic, revealing that affective polarization can influence issue polarization.
Google Scholar
Fridman, A., Gershon, R. & Gneezy, A. COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: a longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 16, e0250123 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lang, J., Erickson, W. W. & Jing-Schmidt, Z. #MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital polarization of mask-wearing in the United States during COVID-19. PLoS ONE 16, e0250817 (2021).
Google Scholar
Raymond, L., Kelly, D. & Hennes, E. Norm-based governance for a new era: collective action in the face of hyper-politicization. Persp. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721003054 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sieber, J. & Ziegler, R. Group polarization revisited: a processing effort account. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45, 1482–1498 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S. & Nisbett, R. E. Social Psychology Revised edn (W. W. Norton, 2016).
Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C. & Davidson, B. Polarized norms and social frames of reference: a test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11, 77–100 (1990).
Google Scholar
McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B. & Wetherell, M. S. Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 1–19 (1992).
Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks And Political Behavior (Univ. Chicago Press, 2012).
Sunstein, C. Conformity: The Power Of Social Influences (New York Univ. Press, 2019).
Tesser, A. Self-generated attitude change. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 11, 289–338 (1978).
Google Scholar
Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200143 (2021). This article reviews work on false polarization (when partisans hold inaccurate beliefs about the other side), identifies conditions false polarization leads to actual polarization, and suggests why correcting perceptions about the other party’s beliefs can be effective.
Google Scholar
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M. & Horowitz, J. M. Party polarization in American politics: characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9, 83–110 (2006).
Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. On party polarization in congress. Daedalus 136, 104–107 (2007).
Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. & Abrams, S. J. Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 563–588 (2008).
Google Scholar
Bonica, A. Mapping the ideological marketplace. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 367–386 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hare, C. & Poole, K. T. The polarization of contemporary American politics. Polity 46, 411–429 (2014).
Google Scholar
Abramowitz, A. I. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump (Yale Univ. Press, 2018).
Neal, Z. P. A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the US Congress, 1973–2016. Soc. Netw. 60, 103–112 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bonica, A. & Sen, M. Estimating judicial ideology. J. Econ. Perspect. 35, 97–118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. The microfoundations of mass polarization. Polit. Anal. 17, 162–176 (2009).
Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J. & Pope, J. C. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America 3rd edn (Pearson Longman, 2010).
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., Green, J. C., Herrera, R. & Cooperman, R. Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104, 324–346 (2010).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. Clearer cues, more consistent voters: a benefit of elite polarization. Polit. Behav. 32, 111–131 (2010).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E. & Slothuus, R. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 107, 57–79 (2013).
Google Scholar
Baldassarri, D. & Park, B. Was there a culture war? Partisan polarization and secular trends in US public opinion. J. Polit. 82, 809–827 (2020). This analysis of trends in public opinion in the USA over time finds partisan polarization on economic and civil rights issues, whereas opinions on moral issues followed a trend of secularization. Both Democrats and Republicans have increasingly adopted more progressive moral views, but Republicans changed their views more slowly than Democrats.
Google Scholar
Abramowitz, A. I. & Saunders, K. L. Is polarization a myth? J. Polit. 70, 542–555 (2008).
Google Scholar
Bafumi, J. & Shapiro, R. Y. A new partisan voter. J. Polit. 71, 1–24 (2009).
Google Scholar
Jacoby, W. G. Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 108, 754–771 (2014).
Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. J. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 690–707 (2015).
Google Scholar
Mason, L. “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 128–145 (2015).
Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y. Mass polarization: manifestations and measurements. Public Opin. Q. 80, 392–410 (2016).
Google Scholar
Lupton, R. N., Smallpage, S. M. & Enders, A. M. Values and political predispositions in the age of polarization: examining the relationship between partisanship and ideology in the United States, 1988–2012. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 1–20 (2017). This study uses over-time data to show that alignment between ideology and partisanship has increased asymmetrically among those with conservative value orientations, presumably owing to Republican discourse emphasizing traditional family values and resistance to social change.
Webster, S. W. & Abramowitz, A. I. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. Am. Polit. Res. 45, 621–647 (2017). This article uses survey and experimental data to show that ideological beliefs (polarization) influence affective polarization, especially when it comes to social welfare issues.
Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019).
Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J. & Bryson, B. Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? Am. J. Sociol. 102, 690–755 (1996).
Google Scholar
Evans, J. H. Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized? An update. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 71–90 (2003).
Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. Unstable majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate (Hoover Press, 2017).
Kinder, D. R. & Kalmoe, N. P. Neither Liberal Nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence In The American Public (Univ. Chicago Press, 2017).
Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public. Opin. Q. 82, 379–390 (2018).
Google Scholar
Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 199–204 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. Putting polarization in perspective. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39, 413–448 (2009).
Google Scholar
Ahler, D. J. & Broockman, D. E. The delegate paradox: why polarized politicians can represent citizens best. J. Polit. 80, 1117–1133 (2018).
Google Scholar
Voelkel, J. G. et al. Interventions reducing affective polarization do not improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7evmp (2021).
Google Scholar
Baldassarri, D. & Page, S. E. The emergence and perils of polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2116863118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Torcal, M. & Magalhães, P. C. Ideological extremism, perceived party system polarization, and support for democracy. Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000066 (2022).
Google Scholar
van Baar, J. M. & FeldmanHall, O. The polarized mind in context: interdisciplinary approaches to the psychology of political polarization. Am. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000814 (2022).
Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M. & Rokkan, S. in Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives 1–64 (The Free Press, 1967).
Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M. & Richeson, J. A. The pitfalls and promise of increasing racial diversity: threat, contact, and race relations in the 21st century. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 188–193 (2018). This review provides a framework for studying the impact of the growth of racial and ethnic diversity, and discusses how demographic changes can generate status threat and prejudice but could also lead to positive interpersonal contact experiences.
Google Scholar
Cox, G. W. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).
Gidron, N., Adams, J. & Horne, W. American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).
Stewart, A., McCarty, N. & Bryson, J. Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline. Sci. Adv. 6, eabd4201 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mudde, C. Fighting the system? Populist radical right parties and party system change. Party Politics 20, 217–226 (2014).
Google Scholar
Lauka, A., McCoy, J. & Firat, R. B. Mass partisan polarization: measuring a relational concept. Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 107–126 (2018).
Google Scholar
Westwood, S. J. et al. The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57, 333–354 (2018).
Google Scholar
Harel, T. O., Jameson, J. K. & Maoz, I. The normalization of hatred: Identity, affective polarization, and dehumanization on Facebook in the context of intractable political conflict. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 1–10 (2020).
Reiljan, A. The Politics Of Differentiated Integration: What Do Governments Want? Country Report Research Paper No. RSCAS 2020/92 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3783232 (Estonia Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, 2020).
McCarty, N. Polarization: What Everyone Needs To Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).
Hacker, J. & Pierson, P. in Solutions to Political Polarization in America (ed. Persily, N.) 59–70 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
Grossmann, M. & Hopkins, D. A. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
Franks, A. S. & Hesami, F. Seeking evidence of the MAGA cult and Trump derangement syndrome: an examination of (a)symmetric political bias. Societies 11, 113 (2021).
Google Scholar
Guth, J. L. & Nelsen, B. F. Party choice in Europe: social cleavages and the rise of populist parties. Party Politics 27, 453–464 (2021).
Google Scholar
Park, B. How are we apart? Continuity and change in the structure of ideological disagreement in the American public, 1980–2012. Soc. Forces 96, 1757–1784 (2018). This article describes three types of ideological disagreement — polarization, partisan sorting and dimensional alignment — and analyses historical trends in US public opinion for each dimension.
Google Scholar
Kozlowski, A. C. & Murphy, J. P. Issue alignment and partisanship in the American public: revisiting the ‘partisans without constraint’ thesis. Soc. Sci. Res. 94, 1024–98 (2021).
Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public. Opin. Q. 76, 405–431 (2012).
Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. in The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice (eds Sibley, C. G. & Barlow, F. K.) 90–110 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
Dias, N. & Lelkes, Y. The nature of affective polarization: disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628 (2021).
Google Scholar
Enders, A. M. & Lupton, R. N. Value extremity contributes to affective polarization in the US. Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 9, 857–866 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rogowski, J. C. & Sutherland, J. L. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Polit. Behav. 38, 485–508 (2016).
Google Scholar
Bougher, L. D. The correlates of discord: identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Polit. Behav. 39, 731–762 (2017).
Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).
Google Scholar
Bullock, J. G. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 496–515 (2011).
Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y. Affective polarization and ideological sorting: a reciprocal, albeit weak, relationship. Forum 16, 67–79 (2018).
Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86, 307 (1979).
Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33, 1–39 (1982).
Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. in Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds Worchel, S. & Austin, W. A.) 7–24 (Nelson-Hall, 1986).
Mason, L. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (Univ. Chicago Press, 2018).
Van Bavel, J. J. & Packer, D. The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony (Little Brown Spark, 2021).
Kinder, D. R. & Kam, C. D. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion (Univ. Chicago Press, 2010).
Van Bavel, J. J. & Pereira, A. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 213–224 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. Lay Epistemics And Human Knowledge: Cognitive And Motivational Basis (Plenum, 1989).
Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).
Google Scholar
Dunning, D. A newer look: motivated social cognition and the schematic representation of social concepts. Psychol. Inq. 10, 1–11 (1999).
Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Hennes, E. P. & Lavine, H. in The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (ed. Carlston, D. E.) 851–875 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).
Jost, J. T. Resistance to change: a social psychological perspective. Soc. Res. 82, 607–636 (2015).
Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. A Theory of System Justification (Harvard Univ. Press, 2020).
Lodge, M. & Taber, C. S. The Rationalizing Voter (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Baron, J. & Jost, J. T. False equivalence: are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 292–303 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rollwage, M., Zmigrod, L., de-Wit, L., Dolan, R. J. & Fleming, S. M. What underlies political polarization? A manifesto for computational political psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 820–822 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rigoli, F. Masters of suspicion: a Bayesian decision model of motivated political reasoning. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 51, 350–370 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zmigrod, L. The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 34–39 (2020).
Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. Left And Right: The Psychological Significance Of A Political Distinction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).
Abelson, R. P. et al. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook (Rand McNally, 1968).
Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (eds) Cognitive Consistency: A Fundamental Principle in Social Cognition (Guilford, 2012).
Noel, H. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Mercier, H. in Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena In Thinking, Judgment And Memory (ed. Pohl, R. F.) 99–114 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2017).
Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Does “putting on your thinking cap” reduce myside bias in evaluation of scientific evidence? Think. Reason. 25, 477–505 (2019).
Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. The Bias That Divides Us: The Science And Politics Of Myside Thinking (MIT Press, 2021).
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 2098–2109 (1979).
Google Scholar
Ditto, P. H. et al. At least bias is bipartisan: a meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 273–291 (2019).
Google Scholar
Prior, M., Sood, G. & Khanna, K. You cannot be serious: the impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 10, 489–518 (2015).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. & McGrath, M. C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 111–119 (2019). This work highlights the difficulty of distinguishing partisan motivated reasoning from accuracy-driven reasoning, noting that most studies assume but do not show that motivated reasoning exacerbates issue polarization.
Google Scholar
Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 1497–1515 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 81–87 (2020).
Google Scholar
Schwalbe, M. C., Cohen, G. L. & Ross, L. D. The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 21218–21229 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. & Ross, L. The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 369–381 (2002).
Google Scholar
Blatz, C. W. & Mercier, B. False polarization and false moderation: political opponents overestimate the extremity of each other’s ideologies but underestimate each other’s certainty. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 9, 521–529 (2018).
Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. The totalitarian ego: fabrication and revision of personal history. Am. Psychol. 35, 603–618 (1980).
Google Scholar
Vraga, E. K. How party affiliation conditions the experience of dissonance and explains polarization and selective exposure. Soc. Sci. Q. 96, 487–502 (2015).
Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. in Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology 3–24 (American Psychological Association, 2019).
Stanley, M. L., Henne, P., Yang, B. W. & De Brigard, F. Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Polit. Behav. 42, 891–913 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bail, C. A. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9216–9221 (2018).
Google Scholar
Effron, D. A. It could have been true: how counterfactual thoughts reduce condemnation of falsehoods and increase political polarization. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 729–745 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J. & Steele, C. M. When beliefs yield to evidence: reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1151–1164 (2000).
Google Scholar
Stone, J., Whitehead, J., Schmader, T. & Focella, E. Thanks for asking: self-affirming questions reduce backlash when stigmatized targets confront prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 589–598 (2011).
Google Scholar
Huber, M., Van Boven, L., Park, B. & Pizzi, W. T. Seeing red: anger increases how much Republican identification predicts partisan attitudes and perceived polarization. PLoS ONE 10, e0139193 (2015).
Google Scholar
Fernbach, P. M. & Boven, L. V. False polarization: cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 43, 1–6 (2022). This essay addresses how false polarization — where partisans hold false beliefs about the other side — can lead to actual polarization owing to categorical thinking, oversimplification and emotional amplification.
Google Scholar
Howell, J. L., Gaither, S. E. & Ratliff, K. A. Caught in the middle: defensive responses to IAT feedback among whites, blacks, and biracial black/whites. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 6, 373–381 (2015).
Google Scholar
Vitriol, J. & Moskowitz, G. B. Reducing defensive responding to implicit bias feedback: on the role of perceived moral threat and efficacy to change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 96, 104165 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mellers, B., Tetlock, P. & Arkes, H. R. Forecasting tournaments, epistemic humility and attitude depolarization. Cognition 188, 19–26 (2019).
Google Scholar
Porter, T. & Schumann, K. Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self Identity 17, 139–162 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bowes, S. M., Blanchard, M. C., Costello, T. H., Abramowitz, A. I. & Lilienfeld, S. O. Intellectual humility and between-party animus: implications for affective polarization in two community samples. J. Res. Pers. 88, 103992 (2020).
Google Scholar
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J. & Newman, B. Intellectual humility in the sociopolitical domain. Self Identity 19, 989–1016 (2020).
Google Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Kafati, G. Group identity and intergroup relations: the common in-group identity model. Adv. Group. Process. 17, 1–35 (2000).
Google Scholar
Ashokkumar, A., Galaif, M. & Swann, W. B. Jr Tribalism can corrupt: why people denounce or protect immoral group members. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 85, 103874 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36, 235–262 (2014).
Google Scholar
Leeper, T. J. & Slothuus, R. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Polit. Psychol. 35, 129–156 (2014).
Google Scholar
Connors, E. C. The social dimension of political values. Polit. Behav. 42, 961–982 (2020).
Google Scholar
Merkley, E. & Stecula, D. A. Party cues in the news: democratic elites, Republican backlash, and the dynamics of climate skepticism. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1439–1456 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ashokkumar, A. et al. Censoring political opposition online: who does it and why. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 91, 104031 (2020). This study finds that supporters of a political cause (such as abortion restriction or gun control) recommend deleting ideologically incongruent messages and banning sources of ideologically incongruent messages, even when messages are inoffensive.
Google Scholar
Van Boven, L., Judd, C. M. & Sherman, D. K. Political polarization projection: social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 84 (2012).
Google Scholar
Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J. & Sherman, D. K. Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 492–507 (2018).
Google Scholar
Westwood, S. J. & Peterson, E. The inseparability of race and partisanship in the United States. Political Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09648-9 (2020).
Google Scholar
Eibach, R. Ideological polarization and social psychology. Oxford Res. Encyc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.240 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).
Google Scholar
Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. & Judd, C. M. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 145–158 (2015).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80, 378–391 (2016).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. (Mis-) estimating affective polarization. J. Polit. 84, 1106–1117 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N. & Willer, R. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2116851119 (2022).
Google Scholar
Stern, C. & Crawford, J. T. Ideological conflict and prejudice: an adversarial collaboration examining correlates and ideological (a)symmetries. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 12, 42–53 (2021).
Google Scholar
Enders, A. M. & Armaly, M. T. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit. Behav. 41, 815–839 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wolf, L. J., Weinstein, N. & Maio, G. R. Anti-immigrant prejudice: understanding the roles of (perceived) values and value dissimilarity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 925–953 (2019).
Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Levy, A., Herman, C. P. & Evenbeck, S. Attitudinal politics: the strategy of moderation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 100–108 (1973).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. & Malhotra, N. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Polit. Commun. 33, 283–301 (2016).
Google Scholar
Robison, J. & Mullinix, K. J. Elite polarization and public opinion: how polarization is communicated and its effects. Polit. Commun. 33, 261–282 (2016).
Google Scholar
Morisi, D., Jost, J. T. & Singh, V. An asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 614–620 (2019). This research shows that US conservatives’ trust in government, more than liberals’, is shaped substantially by who holds the presidency — they trust the government much more when the president shares their ideology.
Google Scholar
Morisi, D., Jost, J. T., Panagopoulos, C., & Valtonen, J. Is there an ideological asymmetry in the incumbency effect? Evidence from US Congressional elections. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211046830 (2022).
Google Scholar
Sidanius, J. & Liu, J. H. The Gulf War and the Rodney King beating: implications of the general conservatism and social dominance perspectives. J. Soc. Psychol. 132, 685–700 (1992).
Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 41–113 (2001).
Google Scholar
Van Assche, J., Dhont, K. & Pettigrew, T. F. The social-psychological bases of far-right support in Europe and the United States. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. 29, 385–401 (2019).
Google Scholar
Womick, J., Rothmund, T., Azevedo, F., King, L. A. & Jost, J. T. Group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression predict support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10, 643–652 (2019).
Google Scholar
Forscher, P. S. & Kteily, N. S. A psychological profile of the alt-right. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 90–116 (2020).
Google Scholar
Nilsson, A. & Jost, J. T. The authoritarian-conservatism nexus. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 148–154 (2020).
Google Scholar
Knuckey, J. & Hassan, K. Authoritarianism and support for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Soc. Sci. J. 59, 47–60 (2022).
Google Scholar
Crowson, H. M. & Brandes, J. A. Differentiating between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton voters using facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientation: a brief report. Psychol. Rep. 120, 364–373 (2017).
Google Scholar
Grossmann, M. & Thaler, D. Mass–elite divides in aversion to social change and support for Donald Trump. Am. Polit. Res. 46, 753–784 (2018).
Google Scholar
Becker, J. C. Ideology and the promotion of social change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 6–11 (2020).
Google Scholar
Halliez, A. A. & Thornton, J. R. Examining trends in ideological identification: 1972–2016. Am. Polit. Res. 49, 259–268 (2021).
Google Scholar
Nosek, B., Banaji, M. R., & Jost, J. T. in Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification (eds Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C. & Thorisdottir, H.) 480–506 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).
Brooks, C. & Manza, J. A broken public? Americans’ responses to the great recession. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78, 727–748 (2013).
Google Scholar
Luttig, M. The structure of inequality and Americans’ attitudes toward redistribution. Public. Opin. Q. 77, 811–821 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bartels, L. M. Unequal Democracy 2nd edn (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).
Trump, K. S. Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 929–952 (2018).
Google Scholar
Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T. & Sterling, J. Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined. J. Soc. Issues 75, 49–88 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hing, L. S. S., Wilson, A. E., Gourevitch, P., English, J. & Sin, P. Failure to respond to rising income inequality: processes that legitimize growing disparities. Daedalus 148, 105–135 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mijs, J. J. The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socioecon. Rev. 19, 7–35 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jacquet, J., Dietrich, M. & Jost, J. T. The ideological divide and climate change opinion: “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. Front. Psychol. 5, 1458 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. et al. Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 322–328 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A. & Jost, J. T. Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: the case of anthropogenic climate change. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 755–771 (2016).
Google Scholar
Azevedo, F. & Jost, J. T. The ideological basis of anti-scientific attitudes: effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification. Group Process. Interg. Relat. 24, 518–549 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ang, Z., Reeves, A., Rogowski, J. C. & Vishwanath, A. Partisanship, economic assessments, and presidential accountability. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12659 (2021).
Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. V. III, Sharma, P. N., Sharma, U. & Hult, G. T. M. Partisan bias and citizen satisfaction, confidence, and trust in the US Federal Government. Public Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1945667 (2021).
Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. Constructing Social Psychology: Creative And Critical Processes (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).
Lasswell, H. D. in The Communication of Ideas (ed. Bryson, L.) (Harper and Brothers, 1948).
Druckman, J. N. A framework for the study of persuasion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 25, 65–88 (2022). This review provides a framework for drawing generalization from research on persuasion, focusing on the actors (speakers and receivers), treatments (topics, content and media), outcomes (attitudes, behaviours, emotions and identities) and settings (competition, space, time, process and culture).
Google Scholar
Zaller, J. R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).
Achen, C. H. & Bartels, L. M. Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).
Layman, G. C. & Carsey, T. M. Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 786–802 (2002).
Google Scholar
Lindaman, K. & Haider-Markel, D. P. Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture wars. Polit. Res. Q. 55, 91–110 (2002).
Google Scholar
Egan, P. J. & Mullin, M. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20, 209–227 (2017).
Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G. & Woods, J. The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Polit. Behav. 24, 361–377 (2002).
Google Scholar
Flores, A. et al. Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2117543119 (2022).
Google Scholar
Petty, R., Ostrom, T., & Brock, T. (eds) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (Psychology Press, 2014).
Huddy, L. & Yair, O. Reducing affective polarization: warm group relations or policy compromise? Polit. Psychol. 42, 291–309 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).
Google Scholar
Rolfe, M. Voter Turnout: A Social Theory of Political Participation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R. & Hatemi, P. K. The dating preferences of liberals and conservatives. Polit. Behav. 35, 519–538 (2013).
Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M. & Osborn, T. Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: the political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Polit. Psychol. 25, 65–95 (2004).
Google Scholar
Lee, B. & Bearman, P. Political isolation in America. Netw. Sci. 8, 333–355 (2020). The study documents trends in the composition of political discussion networks and shows that American’s core discussion networks shrink during heated political times.
Google Scholar
Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Ideological segregation online and offline. Q. J. Econ. 126, 1799–1839 (2011).
Google Scholar
Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).
Google Scholar
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015). This study estimates ideological preferences of 3.8 million Twitter users in the USA and finds that ideological segregation in social media is less extreme than previously thought. Moreover, liberals are more likely than conservatives to engage in cross-ideological dissemination of information online.
Google Scholar
Barberá, P. in Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field (eds Persily, N. & Tucker, J.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).
Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. S. Voter migration and the geographic sorting of the American electorate. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 856–870 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mummolo, J. & Nall, C. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Polit. 79, 45–59 (2017). Evidence from survey experiments suggests that partisans are not migrating to more politically distinct communities. By prioritizing common concerns when deciding where to live, Americans forgo the opportunity to move to more politically congenial communities.
Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. & Enos, R. D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 998–1008 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bishop, B. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009).
Rodden, J. Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Divide (Basic Books, 2019).
DellaPosta, D., Shi, Y. & Macy, M. Why do liberals drink lattes? Am. J. Sociol. 120, 1473–1511 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. & Weiler, J. Prius Or Pickup? How The Answers To Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide (Houghton Mifflin, 2018).
Mutz, D. C. & Rao, J. S. The real reason liberals drink lattes. PS Polit. Sci. Politics 51, 762–767 (2018).
Google Scholar
Rogers, N. & Jost, J. T. Liberals as cultural omnivores. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 7, 255–265 (2022). This analysis reveals that self-identified liberalism was positively associated with the total number of cultural exposures across a wide range of domains. The ideological asymmetry in cultural sorting was statistically mediated by individual differences in openness to new experiences.
Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Richeson, J. A., Son, D. & Finkel, E. J. Is love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic desire. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 1258–1268 (2009).
Google Scholar
Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. Political homophily in social relationships. J. Polit. 79, 269–283 (2017). Using an online experiment and observational data from an online dating community, this article shows that USA residents are more inclined to date individuals who have similar (versus dissimilar) political characteristics to themselves.
Google Scholar
McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N. & Levendusky, M. The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62, 5–18 (2017).
Google Scholar
Shafranek, R. M. Political considerations in nonpolitical decisions. Polit. Behav. 43, 271–300 (2021).
Google Scholar
Baldassarri, D. & Goldberg, A. Neither ideologues nor agnostics: alternative voters’ belief system in an age of partisan politics. Am. J. Sociol. 120, 45–95 (2014). This network analysis of political belief systems of USA voters finds that a third of the electorate is composed of individuals who are morally conservative but economically liberal, or vice versa. These conflicting political views are linked to sociodemographic profiles.
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. & Nelson, K. R. Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47, 729–745 (2003).
Google Scholar
Klar, S. Partisanship in a social setting. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 687–704 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hart, P. S., Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions: influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Sci. Commun. 37, 506–532 (2015).
Google Scholar
Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D. & Beam, M. A. Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Commun. Monogr. 86, 357–376 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rossiter, E. The consequences of interparty conversation on outparty affect and stereotypes. Preprint at http://erossiter.com/files/conversations.pdf (2020).
Boutyline, A. & Willer, R. The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Polit. Psychol. 38, 551–569 (2017).
Google Scholar
Xu, X., Mar, R. A. & Peterson, J. B. Does cultural exposure partially explain the association between personality and political orientation? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39, 1497–1517 (2013).
Google Scholar
Matz, S. C. Personal echo chambers: openness-to-experience is linked to higher levels of psychological interest diversity in large-scale behavioral data. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121, 1284–1300 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lee, S., Rojas, H. & Yamamoto, M. Social media, messaging apps, and affective polarization in the United States and Japan. Mass. Commun. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1953534 (2021).
Google Scholar
Gerber, A., Huber, G., Doherty, D. & Dowling, C. Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56, 849–874 (2012).
Google Scholar
Cowan, S. K. & Baldassarri, D. “It could turn ugly”: selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks. Soc. Netw. 52, 1–17 (2018). Using a novel set of survey questions, this research illustrates the mechanism of selective disclosure: the tendency to withhold political attitudes from those with whom one disagrees in an attempt to avoid conflict.
Google Scholar
Baldassarri, D. & Bearman, P. Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72, 784–811 (2007).
Google Scholar
Goel, S., Mason, W. & Watts, D. J. Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 611–621 (2010).
Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. Self-censorship as a socio-political-psychological phenomenon: conception and research. Polit. Psychol. 38 (suppl. 1), 37–65 (2017).
Google Scholar
Groenendyk, E. & Krupnikov, Y. What motivates reasoning? A theory of goal-dependent political evaluation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65, 180–196 (2021).
Google Scholar
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. & Feinberg, M. Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 223–228 (2020).
Google Scholar
Prior, M. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality In Political Involvement And Polarizes Elections (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Arceneaux, K. & Johnson, M. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice (Univ. Chicago Press, 2013).
Prior, M. Media and political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 101–127 (2013).
Google Scholar
Prior, M. Hooked: How Politics Captures People’s Interest (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).
Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. Independent Politics: How American Disdain For Parties Leads To Political Inaction (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).
Krupnikov, Y. & Ryan J. B. The Other Divide: Polarization And Disengagement In American Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
DellaVigna, S. & Kaplan, E. The Fox News effect: media bias and voting. Q. J. Econ. 120, 1187–1234 (2007).
Google Scholar
Martin, G. J. & Yurukoglu, A. Bias in cable news: persuasion and polarization. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 2565–2599 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. J. & Ladd, J. M. The consequences of broader media choice: evidence from the expansion of Fox News. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 9, 115–135 (2014).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. How Partisan Media Polarize America (Univ. Chicago Press, 2013).
Druckman, J. N., Gubitz, S. R., Levendusky, M. S. & Lloyd, A. How incivility on partisan media (de-)polarizes the electorate. J. Polit. 81, 291–295 (2019).
Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Osborne, D. & Badaan, V. Missing in (collective) action: ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of protest behavior. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 99–108 (2017).
Google Scholar
Osborne, D., Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Badaan, V. & Sibley, C. G. Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 244–269 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mikołajczak, G., Becker, J. C. & Iyer, A. Women who challenge or defend the status quo: ingroup identities as predictors of progressive and reactionary collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2842 (2022).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S. & McLain, A. No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via inter-personal discussions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62, 99–112 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. et al. How social media facilitates political protest: information, motivation, and social networks. Polit. Psychol. 39 (suppl. 1), 58–118 (2018).
Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 211–236 (2017).
Google Scholar
Spohr, D. Fake news and ideological polarization: filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Bus. Inf. Rev. 34, 150–160 (2017).
Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C. & Yarchi, M. Interpretative polarization across platforms: how political disagreement develops over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 2056305120944393 (2020).
Bail, C. Breaking The Social Media Prism: How To Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021).
Levy, R. E. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 111, 831–870 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J. & van der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118 (2021). This study of social media platforms finds that messages expressing negative emotions (such as anger, moral outrage and mockery) about the ideological out-group were especially likely to be shared on Facebook and Twitter, compared to other types of message.
Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C. & Sternisko, A. How social media shapes polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 913–916 (2021). This review suggests that social media platforms exacerbate political polarization through mechanisms of partisan selection, message content, platform design and computerized algorithms.
Google Scholar
Yarchi, M., Baden, C. & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Polit. Commun. 38, 98–139 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kim, T. Violent political rhetoric on Twitter. Political Sci. Res. Methods. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.12 (2022).
Google Scholar
Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Sci. 1, 6 (2012).
Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y., Sood, G. & Iyengar, S. The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 61, 5–20 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hargittai, E., Gallo, J. & Kane, M. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 134, 67–86 (2008).
Google Scholar
Dubois, E. & Blank, G. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 729–745 (2018).
Google Scholar
Guess, A., Nyhan, B., Lyons, B. & Reifler, J. Avoiding the Echo Chamber About Echo Chambers (Knight Foundation, 2018).
Brady, W. J., Wills, J., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017). This study shows that moral-emotional language in political messages diffuse at high rates within (but not between) ideological groups on social media, showing how social media can affect polarization through immersion in an ideological network.
Google Scholar
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Burkart, D., Jost, J. T. & Van Bavel, J. J. An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 1802–1813 (2019).
Google Scholar
Allcott, H. et al. Polarization and public health: partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. J. Public Econ. 191, 104254 (2020).
Google Scholar
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Greater internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10612–10617 (2017).
Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit. Behav. 23, 225–256 (2001).
Google Scholar
Busby, E. C., Flynn, D. J., & Druckman, J. N. in Doing News Framing Analysis II (ed. D’Angelo, P.) (Routledge, 2018).
Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass. 13, e12501 (2019).
Google Scholar
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. & Goldsmith, R. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 326–338 (2010).
Google Scholar
Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24, 56–62 (2013).
Google Scholar
Campbell, T. H. & Kay, A. C. Solution aversion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 809–824 (2014).
Google Scholar
Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).
Google Scholar
Klar, S. The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. J. Polit. 75, 1108–1124 (2013).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. Americans, not partisans. J. Polit. 80, 59–70 (2018).
Google Scholar
Talaifar, S. & Swann, W. B., Jr. Deep alignment with country shrinks the moral gap between conservatives and liberals. Polit. Psychol. 40, 657–675 (2019).
Google Scholar
Boxell, L., Conway, J., Druckman, J. N. & Gentzkow, M. Affective polarization did not increase during the COVID-19 pandemic. Q. J. Polit. Sci. Forthcoming https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3785328 (2021).
Google Scholar
Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T. & Rothmund, T. “Making America great again”: system justification in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Transl. Issues Psychol. Sci. 3, 231–240 (2017).
Google Scholar
Billig, M. Banal Nationalism (Sage, 1995).
Bonikowski, B., Feinstein, Y. & Bock, S. The partisan sorting of “America”: How nationalist cleavages shaped the 2016 US Presidential election. Am. J. Sociol. 127, 492–561 (2021).
Google Scholar
van der Toorn, J., Nail, P., Liviatan, I. & Jost, J. T. My country, right or wrong: does activating system justification motivation eliminate the liberal–conservative gap in patriotism? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 54, 50–60 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kobayashi, T. & Katagiri, A. The “rally around the flag” effect in territorial disputes: experimental evidence from Japan–China relations. J. East Asian Stud. 18, 299–319 (2018).
Google Scholar
Porat, R., Tamir, M., Wohl, M. J., Gur, T. & Halperin, E. Motivated emotion and the rally around the flag effect: liberals are motivated to feel collective angst (like conservatives) when faced with existential threat. Cogn. Emot. 33, 480–491 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lau, R. R., Anderson, D. J., Ditono, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S. & Redlawsk, D. P. Effect of media environment diversity and advertising tone on information search, selective exposure, and affective polarization. Polit. Behav. 39, 231–255 (2017).
Google Scholar
Gooch, A. Ripping yarn: experiments on storytelling by partisan elites. Polit. Commun. 35, 220–238 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C. & Gray, K. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2008389118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Broockman, D. E. & Kalla, J. L. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).
Google Scholar
Martinez, J. E., Feldman, L. A., Feldman, M. J. & Cikara, M. Narratives shape cognitive representations of immigrants and immigration-policy preferences. Psychol. Sci. 32, 135–152 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective-getting. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12657 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: evidence from three field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 410–425 (2020).
Google Scholar
Carpenter, C. J. Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Ann. Int. Comun. Assoc. 43, 1–23 (2019).
Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Spring, V., Harris, E. & Duke, A. Speaking my truth: why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100280118 (2021).
Google Scholar
Mullinix, K. J. Partisanship and preference formation: competing motivations, elite polarization, and issue importance. Polit. Behav. 38, 383–411 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Bayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating. Cognition 204, 104375 (2020).
Google Scholar
Molden, D. C., Bayes, R. & Druckman, J. N. A motivational systems approach to investigating opinions on climate change. Think. Reason. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1982003 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lelkes, Y. & Westwood, S. J. The limits of partisan prejudice. J. Polit. 79, 485–501 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kingzette, J. et al. How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opin. Q. 85, 663–677 (2021).
Google Scholar
Webber, D., Kruglanski, A., Molinario, E. & Jasko, K. Ideologies that justify political violence. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 107–111 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hartman, R. et al. Interventions to reduce political animosity: a systematic review. Trends Cogn. Sci. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ha2tf (2021).
Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. in Solutions to Political Polarization in America (ed. Persily, N.) 73–82 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
Ravndal, J. A. Explaining right-wing terrorism and violence in Western Europe: grievances, opportunities and polarisation. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57, 845–866 (2018).
Google Scholar
Baker, J. O. & Edmonds, A. E. Immigration, presidential politics, and partisan polarization among the American public, 1992–2018. Sociol. Spectr. 41, 287–303 (2021).
Google Scholar
Harteveld, E., Mendoza, P. & Rooduijn, M. Affective polarization and the populist radical right: creating the hating? Gov. Oppos. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.31 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bonikowski, B. Ethno-nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective resentment. Br. J. Sociol. 68, S181–S213 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hart, R. P. Donald Trump and the return of the paranoid style. Pres. Stud. Q. 50, 348–365 (2020).
Google Scholar
Isom, D. A., Mikell, T. C. & Boehme, H. M. White America, threat to the status quo, and affiliation with the alt-right: a qualitative approach. Sociol. Spect. 41, 213–228 (2021).
Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F. & Jost, J. T. The paranoid style in American politics revisited: an ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Polit. Psychol. 42, 23–51 (2021).
Google Scholar
Franco, A. B. & Pound, N. The foundations of Bolsonaro’s support: exploring the psychological underpinnings of political polarization in Brazil. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2599 (2022).
Google Scholar
Imhoff, R. et al. Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 392–403 (2022). This study found that, across 26 countries, rightists scored consistently higher than leftists on a generalized conspiracy mentality scale in 11 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland). In three countries (Hungary, Romania and the UK), there were conflicting results; there was only one country (Spain) where leftists were more conspiracy-minded than rightists.
Google Scholar
Mitchell, A., Jurkowitz, M., Oliphant, J. B. & Shearer, E. Americans who mainly get their news on social media are less engaged, less knowledgeable. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/ (2020).
Levendusky, M. & Stecula, D. We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K. S. Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J. Commun. 59, 19–39 (2009).
Google Scholar
Glinitzer, K., Gummer & Wagner, M. Learning facts about migration: politically motivated learning of polarizing information about refugees. Polit. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12734 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ma, Y., Dixon, G. & Hmielowski, J. Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: the role of prior views and political identification. Environ. Commun. 13, 71–86 (2019).
Google Scholar
Goya-Tocchetto, D., Kay, A. C., Vuletich, H., Vonasch, A. & Payne, K. The partisan trade-off bias: when political polarization meets policy trade-offs. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 98, 104231 (2022).
Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. & Jacobson, R. P. Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 1–8 (2021).
Google Scholar
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62, 49–58 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bayes, R., Druckman, J., Goods, A. & Molden, D. C. When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Polit. Psychol. 41, 1031–1052 (2020).
Google Scholar
Baxter-King, R., Brown, J. R., Enos, R. D., Naeim, A. & Vavreck, L. How local partisan context conditions prosocial behaviors: mask wearing during COVID-19. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2116311119 (2022).
Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C. & Hardin, C. D. Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 23, 77–83 (2018). From the perspective of system justification theory, this article reviews evidence of ideological asymmetry such that conservatives prioritize conformity, possess a stronger desire for a shared reality with those who share their ideology, and maintain more homogeneous networks, compared to liberals.
Google Scholar
Perez-Truglia, R. & Cruces, G. Partisan interactions: evidence from a field experiment in the United States. J. Polit. Econ. 125, 1208–1243 (2017).
Google Scholar
Perez-Truglia, R. Political conformity: event-study evidence from the United States. Rev. Econ. Stat. 100, 14–28 (2018).
Google Scholar
Martin, G. J. & Webster, S. W. Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 8, 215–231 (2020).
Google Scholar
Johnston, R., Manley, D., Jones, K. & Rohla, R. The geographical polarization of the American electorate: a country of increasing electoral landslides? GeoJournal. 85, 187–204 (2020).
Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., Enos, R. D., Feigenbaum, J. & Mazumder, S. Childhood cross-ethnic exposure predicts political behavior seven decades later: evidence from linked administrative data. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe8432 (2021).
Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Overcome the Partisan Divide (Univ. Chicago Press, 2023).
Kriesi, H. et al. Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 45, 921–956 (2006).
Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. J. Eur. Public Policy 25, 109–135 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sorace, M. & Hobolt, S. B. A tale of two peoples: motivated reasoning in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 9, 675–692 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hobolt, S. B., Leeper, T. J. & Tilley, J. Divided by the vote: affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1476–1493 (2021).
Google Scholar
Vössing, K. Shaping public opinion about regional integration: the rhetoric of justification and party cues. Polit. Stud. 69, 492–513 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bosco, A. & Verney, S. Polarization in southern Europe: elites, party conflicts and negative partisanship. South. Eur. Soc. Politics 25, 257–284 (2020).
Google Scholar
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Rev. Econ. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01160 (2022).
Google Scholar
Draca, M. & Schwarz, C. How polarized are citizens? Measuring ideology from the ground-up. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3154431 (2021).
Garcia-Rada, X. & Norton, M. I. Putting within-country political differences in (global) perspective. PLoS ONE 15, e0231794 (2021).
Google Scholar
Thomsen, D. M. Opting Out Of Congress: Partisan Polarization And The Decline Of Moderate Candidates (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
Pierson, P. & Schickler, E. Madison’s constitution under stress: a developmental analysis of political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 23, 37–58 (2020).
Google Scholar
Berman, C. When revolutionary coalitions break down: polarization, protest, and the Tunisian political crisis of August 2013. Middle East Law Gov. 11, 136–179 (2019).
Google Scholar
Grzymała-Busse, A. The failure of Europe’s mainstream parties. J. Democr. 30, 35–47 (2019).
Google Scholar