Our experiment examines the effect of information and issue saliency on presidential approval. Subjects received either pro‐Bush or anti‐Bush information on the president's Iraq War and Social Security policies in the form of newspaper opinion pieces and/or polls, and then evaluated Bush's overall job performance and his handling of these two issues. Information and polls that supported Bush's Social Security policy led subjects to support Bush on this issue, but attitudes were resistant on the more salient Iraq issue. The experiment demonstrates that poll results, more than simply reflecting aggregate opinion, influence attitudes on less salient issues.

Political observers have detected a noticeable uptick in American political incivility in recent years, culminating with several moderate senators recently citing the rise of hard-core partisanship as the reason for their retirement. Supporting these accusations of unprecedented incivility with empirical evidence can be difficult, as notions of what constitutes appropriate, civil behavior are subjective and can vary across the political context of different eras. Was it more uncivil, for example, for William Jennings Bryan to accuse his political opponents of crucifying other Americans on a cross of gold than it was for a member of Congress to yell “You lie!” at the president in the nation's Capitol? Assessing the incivility of these statements requires determining the effect each had on political opponents' abilities to maintain a functional relationship despite their disagreement over policy outcomes. Nevertheless, many politicians, political observers, and scholars are truly concerned that current levels of incivility are indeed worse, not only damaging the ability to resolve complex public problems, but threatening the long-term stability of America's governing institutions. Largely focusing on changes in institutional structures and elite behavior, scholars identify numerous explanations for this trend.

The articles in this symposium are peppered with numerous recent incidents of political incivility ranging from physical scuffles at town hall meetings to the now-infamous accusation shouted at president Barack Obama during a nationally televised address before a joint session of Congress. Name calling and ad hominem attacks that were once associated with talk radio and cable television pundits have made their way into the halls of governing institutions, which no longer serve as sacred spaces one-step removed from bare-knuckled politics. Indeed, divisive views have even made inroads into “safe” topics for discussion—the weather and sports. Forget the intensity of debate over climate change. Democrats were actually 10% more likely to claim that the 2012 winter season was warmer than were their Republicans counterparts (Newport 2012). Sports no longer offers a neutral conversation starter, as 27% of Republicans view Tim Tebow as their favorite quarterback compared to only 9% of Democrats (Public Policy Polling 2011). Vitriol, combined with legislative gridlock and the uproar of protestors—not only in Washington, DC, but also in state capitals and prominent cities across the country—has shifted our discipline's attention to the role of political civility in sustaining a healthy democracy.

The growing literature on American party polarization has focused on growing differences in partisan vote outcomes, political values, and policy position. We argue that a second layer of party polarization has developed that goes far beyond simply issue and ideological differences. A growing unwillingness to want politicians to compromise with the other side and a determination to blame growing political incivility solely on the other party characterizes this additional division. This second layer is important to gauge because an electorate with a significant portion of voters deeply separated on policy questions but open to compromise is appreciably different from an electorate deeply divided on policy and unwilling to budge based on policy and emotion. Our findings show that a solid percentage of the electorate holds strong partisan preferences and wants their party leaders to stand firm on principle rather than compromise with the other side. Furthermore, this strong partisan mood is not simply driven by the particular conditions of the 2010 midterm election, such as the Tea Party or in particular regions. Rather, this stark divisive partisan atmosphere existed generally and was not concentrated in electorally competitive areas.