Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 485–508 | Cite as

How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization

Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Polarization Ideology Electoral competition Affect 

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9323_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A., & Webster, S. (2015). All politics is national: The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. house and senate elections in the 21st century. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Conference (pp. 16–19). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70, 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abramowitz, A. I., & Stone, W. J. (2006). The bush effect: Polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvarez, R. M. (1998). Information and elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties, (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system. American Political Science Review. 44, pp. 1–96Google Scholar
  7. Ashworth, S., & de Mesquita, E. B. (2009). Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior, 67, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bafumi, J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. Journal of Politics, 71, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baldassarri, Delia, & Gelman, Andrew. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 408–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review, 104, 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolce, L., & De Maio, G. (1999). The anti-Christian fundamentalist factor in contemporary politics. Public Opinion Quarterly. doi:10.1086/297869 Google Scholar
  12. Brody, R. A., & Page, B. I. (1973). Indifference, alienation, and rational decisions: The effects of candidate evaluations on turnout and the vote. Public Choice, 15, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buttice, M., & Stone, W. (2012). Candidates matter: Policy and quality differences in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 74, 870–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, M., & Leiter, D. (2014). Does the ideological dispersion of parties mediate the electoral impact of valence? A cross-national study of party support in nine western European democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, A. (1957). an economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Druckman, J. (2004). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. senate election. Political Psychology, 25(4), 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. A., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics, 70, 556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2011). Culture War? The myth of a polarized America (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Funk, C. (1997). Implications of political expertise in candidate trait evaluations. Political Research Quarterly, 50(3), 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Funk, C. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61(03), 700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garner, A., & Palmer, H. (2011). Polarization and issue consistency over time. Political Behavior, 33, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilens, M., Vavreck, L., & Cohen, M. (2007). The mass media and the public’s assessments of presidential candidates, 1952–2000. Journal of Politics, 69, 1160–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hetherington, M. J. (2008). Turned off or turned on? How polarization affects political engagement. In Red and blue nation? Consequences and correction of America’s polarized politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
  28. Hetherington, M. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2013). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobson, G. C. (2003). Partisan polarization in presidential support: The electoral connection. Congress & the Presidency, 30, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobson, G. C. (2006). Polarized opinion in the states: Partisan differences in approval ratings of governors, senators, and George W. Bush. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 732–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobson, G. C. (2011). Legislative success and political failure: The public’s reaction to Barack Obama’s early presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41, 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Clifford, S. (2013). Comparing contemporaneous laboratory and field experiments on media effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jessee, S. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 103, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jewitt, C. E., & Goren P. (2015). Ideological structure and consistency in the age of polarization. American Politics Research. (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  37. Lau, R. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 95–125). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Lau, R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lavine, H., & Gschwend, T. (2006). Issues, party and character: The moderating role of ideological thinking on candidate evaluation. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lelkes, Y., Shanto I., & Gaurav S. (2013). The hostile audience: Selective exposure to partisan sources and affective polarization. Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  41. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lupton, R. N., Myers, W. M., & Thornton, J. R. (2015). Political sophistication and the dimensionality of elite and mass attitudes, 1980–2004. Journal of Politics, 77, 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcus, G. E. (1988). The structure of emotional response: 1984 presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 82, 737–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, Michael. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. McDermott, M. L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McDermott, M. L. (2009). Religious stereotyping and voter support for evangelical candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 340–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, A. (1990). Public judgments of house and senate candidates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(4), 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80, 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. Journal of Politics, 73, 1165–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plane, D. L., & Gershtenson, J. (2004). Candidates’ ideological locations, abstention, and turnout in U.S. midterm senate elections. Political Behavior, 26, 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rabinowitz, G., & Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rogowski, J. C. (2014). Electoral choice, ideological conflict, and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rogowski, J. Voter decision-making with polarized cues. British Journal of Political Science. (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  57. Shor, B., & Rogowski, J. Ideology and the U.S. congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods. (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  58. Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tesler, M. (2012). The spillover of racialization into health care: How president obama polarized public opinion by racial attitudes and race. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 690–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tesler, M. (2013). The return of old-fashioned racism to White Americans’ partisan preferences in the early Obama era. The Journal of Politics, 75(01), 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thornton, J. R. (2012). The impact of elite polarization on partisan ambivalence and indifference. Political Behavior, 35, 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2008). Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review, 102, 218–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Valentino, N., Hutchings, V., & White, I. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vegetti, F. (2014). From political conflict to partisan evaluations: How citizens assess party ideology and competence in polarized elections. Electoral Studies, 35, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wright, G. C., & Berkman, M. B. (1986). Candidates and policy in United States senate elections. American Political Science Review, 80, 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations