How Social Identities Facilitate the Growth of Affective Political Polarization

Authors

  • William Goodwin University of Pittsburgh
  • Claire Tierney University of Pittsburgh
  • Molly McKay University of Pittsburgh
  • Amala Rajeev University of Pittsburgh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/pur.2024.79

Keywords:

Affective Polarization, Ideological Polarization, Outgroup bias, In-group favoritism, Partisanship, Political Polarization, Social Identity, United States

Abstract

This study explored the relationships between a selection of social identity factors and affective political polarization among adults in the United States. A broad selection of literature was reviewed and employed in informing a descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of 2008 and 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) survey data. Multiple regression was used to describe and quantify the relationships between selected variables and affective polarization within the datasets. These methods were paired with tests for differences in means in a comparative analysis of the 2008 and 2020 demographic and political environments, which revealed a statistically significant difference in the levels of affective polarization between the two years. Ideological polarization and ageing stood out as the factors that contributed most heavily to this this growth in affective polarization. Broadly, these findings suggested that demographic and psychographic shifts may have played a role in facilitating growth of affective political polarization across the years. Finally, a post-hoc analysis identified the growth of affective polarization as originating from increased hostility for political out-groups, highlighting the need for further research into other political, social, and economic events that may have triggered the growth of affective polarization.

References

Abramowitz, A., & McCoy, J. 2018. United States: Racial resentment, negative partisanship, and polarization in Trump’s America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science/the Annals, 681(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218811309

American National Election Studies. 2021. ANES 2020 Time Series Study Full Release [dataset and documentation]. February 10, 2022 version. Retrieved from http://www.electionstudies.org

American National Election Studies. 2008. ANES 2008 Time Series Study Full Release.

Bougher, L. D. 2017. The correlates of discord: Identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Political Behavior, 39(3), 731–762.

CBS News. 2023, November 4. From the archives: John McCain’s 2008 Presidential Campaign Concession speech. YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zH9_Q-eImQ

Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. 1995. Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1261–1293. https://doi.org/10.1086/230638

Dettrey, B. J., & Campbell, J. E. 2013. Has growing income inequality polarized the American electorate? Class, party, and ideological polarization. Social Science Quarterly, 94(4), 1062–1083. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42864447

Druckman, J., & Levy, J. 2021. Affective polarization in the American public. Northwestern Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved from http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2021/wp-21-27.pdf

Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. 2008. Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836

Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. 2017. Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003

Grossmann, M., & Grossmann, M. 2023, October 18. What explains the diploma divide? Niskanen Center. Retrieved from http://www.niskanencenter.org/what-explains-the-diploma-divide/

Han, K. J. 2022. Education level and affective polarization: The mediation effects of psychological engagement in politics and authoritarian attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 103(7), 1633–1646. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13228

Harrison, R. 2023. Racial identity explains presidential vote choices more than geography. Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2023/07/racial-identity-explains-presidential-vote-choices-more-than-geography

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. 2019. 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

Jones, B., & Jones, B. 2024, April 14. Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/

Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. 2021. The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070

Maggio, M. H. C. 2021, June 16. Immigration, race & political polarization. American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/immigration-race-political-polarization

Mason, L. 2015. “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089

Mason, L., & Wronski, J. 2018. One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Advances in Political Psychology, 39(S1), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12485

Mentzer, K., Fallon, K., Prichard, J., & Yates, D. J. 2020. Measuring and unpacking affective polarization on Twitter: The role of party and gender in the 2018 senate races. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2459–2468. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-53/dsm/data_mining/4/

Ondercin, H. L., & Lizotte, M. K. 2020. You’ve lost that loving feeling: How gender shapes affective polarization. American Politics Research, 49(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x20972103

Perry, S. L. 2022, July 29. American religion in the era of increasing polarization. Annual Review of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-114239

Rae, N. C. 2007. Be careful what you wish for: The rise of responsible parties in American national politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071105.100750

Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. 2016. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior, 38(2), 485–508. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/48693827

Schmitt, H., & Freire, A. 2012. Citizens and the European polity: Mass attitudes towards the European and national polities. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602339.003.0004

Ulbig, S. G. 2020. Angry politics: Partisan hatred and political polarization among college students. University Press of Kansas. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ft841g

Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. 2017. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17703132

Cover image for PUR Vol. III, No. 2

Downloads

Published

2024-11-12

How to Cite

Goodwin, W., Tierney, C., McKay, M., & Rajeev, A. (2024). How Social Identities Facilitate the Growth of Affective Political Polarization. Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, 3(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5195/pur.2024.79

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review

Section

Research

License

Copyright (c) 2024 William Goodwin, Claire Tierney, Molly McKay, Amala Rajeev

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
  9. The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.