How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization

Abstract

Scholars have reached mixed conclusions about the implications of increased political polarization for citizen decision-making. In this paper, we argue that citizens respond to ideological divergence with heightened affective polarization. Using a survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens, we find that increased ideological differences between political figures produce increasingly polarized affective evaluations, and that these differences are especially large among respondents with stronger ideological commitments and higher levels of political interest. We provide further support for these findings in an observational study of citizens' evaluations of the U.S. Senators from their state. We also find that the polarizing effects of ideological differences can be largely mitigated with biographical information about the public officials, which suggests that the pernicious consequences of ideological polarization can be overcome by focusing on matters other than political disagreement.

‘Fear and loathing across party lines’ (also) in Europe: Affective polarisation in European party systems

“…They found that AP has dramatically surged among the American partisans during the last decades on account of increased hostility between Republicans and Democrats. This study catapulted the affective approach to the forefront of the polarisation debate in the United States, and a number of notable contributions have followed (see Hetherington & Rudolph ; Iyengar & Westwood ; Mason , ; Rogowski & Sutherland ; Lelkes et al. ; Webster & Abramovitz ; Levendusky ; Iyengar & Krupenkin ).…”

“…Thus, we do not know how European countries fare in terms of AP compared to each other and to the United States, not to mention the possible causes and consequences of it. Regarding the foundations of AP and IP‐AP linkage, the current results from the American literature are ambiguous, as some scholars claim that IP has a strong effect on AP (Rogowski & Sutherland ; Webster & Abramovitz ), while others downplay the importance of this relationship (Iyengar et al. ).…”

“…The relative strength of this linkage varies, probably due to slight differences in the studied time periods, the way ideology is operationalised and exact model specifications, but all the authors who have studied it have found a statistically significant positive relationship between IP and AP (Iyengar et al. ; Mason ; Rogowski & Sutherland ; Webster & Abramowitz ). These results confirm that partisans who hold more extreme policy positions are, on average, affectively more polarised.…”

Authoritarianism, Affective Polarization, and Economic Ideology

“…There is little doubt that Democrats and Republicans feel more negatively toward each other now than in the past (Abramowitz & Webster, ; Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, ; Iyengar & Westwood, ; Webster & Abramowitz, ), but debate continues over the causes and implications of “affective polarization.” A central point of disagreement concerns the relationship of affect to policy preferences and ideology. Some scholars argue that ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans has increased substantially over the last few decades (Abramowitz, ; Abramowitz & Saunders, ; Bafumi & Shapiro, ), and affective polarization is the result of sharp, principled disagreements over policy (Rogowski & Sutherland, ), especially on size‐of‐government issues related to redistribution and social welfare (Webster & Abramowitz, ).…”

The “Prejudiced Personality” and the Origins of Partisan Strength, Affective Polarization, and Partisan Sorting

“…While scholars agree that partisanship has become stronger, affective partisan polarization more intense, and partisan‐ideological sorting more pervasive, there is less agreement about what underlies these changes in mass partisanship. One popular theory is that the public has become more ideological (e.g., Abramowitz, ; Levendusky, ; Rogowski & Sutherland, ; Webster & Abramowitz, ). This argument states that elite polarization has clarified the ideological brands of the parties and made it easier for the public to construct their political beliefs like ideologues (Converse, ), identifying with the party that best represents their values.…”