Abstract

While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party's members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. We trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord and conclude with suggestions for future work.

Keywords

Polarization (electrochemistry)DistrustPoliticsPolitical economyPolitical sciencePolitics of the United StatesPhenomenonPublic opinionSocial psychologySociologyPsychologyLawEpistemology

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Media and Political Polarization

This article examines if the emergence of more partisan media has contributed to political polarization and led Americans to support more partisan policies and candidates. Congr...

2013 Annual Review of Political Science 1081 citations

Is Polarization a Myth?

This article uses data from the American National Election Studies and national exit polls to test Fiorina's assertion that ideological polarization in the American public is a ...

2008 The Journal of Politics 1188 citations

Publication Info

Year
2018
Type
article
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
129-146
Citations
2788
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

2788
OpenAlex
139
Influential
1838
CrossRef

Cite This

Shanto Iyengar, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky et al. (2018). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science , 22 (1) , 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Identifiers

DOI
10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Data Quality

Data completeness: 81%