Foundations of Affective Polarization

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

Affective polarization, the tendency to hold positive feelings towards one's political in-group while holding negative feelings towards one’s out-groups, has been shown to have adverse effects on democracy. This panel deepens our knowledge of the determinants of affective polarization across different democratic contexts. Each paper unpacks different drivers of affective polarization either in single countries (United States, Israel) or cross-nationally. Druckman and Schulman’s paper explores the interplay between affective polarization and trust in science in the United States. They argue that greater distance between an individual’s own trust in science and that of one’s out-party increases out-party animus. In addition, polarized trust in science directly undermines core tenets of democracy, such as political compromise. Reiljan and Auerbach’s large N-study looks at the impact of corruption on affective polarization. As partisans tend to blame their political opponents for undesirable outcomes, Reiljan and Auerbach contend that higher levels of corruption have little effect on in-party assessments, and, instead, increase negative affect toward out-parties. Regarded as a valence issue, corruption improves scholarly understanding of how structural conditions may intensify affective polarization. Ridge looks at the role of religious nationalism, specifically Jewish nationalism in Israel, on public opinion and voting behavior. She argues that Israelis who espouse Jewish nationalism evince higher affective polarization. The Adams et al. study elite polarization in Europe. The authors explore the sources of inter-party conflict among party elites and the effects that such conflict has on cultural and economic policies, coalition arrangements, and populist strategies. The Gooch paper analyzes the relationship between candidate repositioning and affective polarization. In sum, all of the papers in this panel highlight various ways in which affective polarization facilitates democratic retrenchment.

Sub Unit

• Division 37: Public Opinion

Chair

• James Adams University of California, Davis

Discussants

• Kiran Rose Auerbach University of Zurich

• Hannah Ridge Chapman University

Individual Presentations

• Political Consequences of Polarized Trust in Science - James N. Druckman, University of Rochester; Jonathan Schulman, University of Pennsylvania

• Corruption and Affective Polarization: A Valence Perspective - Andres Reiljan; Kiran Rose Auerbach, University of Zurich

• Jewish Nationalism and Affective Polarization in Israel - Hannah Ridge, Chapman University

• Who Attacks Whom? How Policy Disputes and Coalitions Drive Party Elite Conflict - James Adams, University of California, Davis; Josephine T. Andrews, University of California, Davis; Braeden Davis; Alexa Federice, University of California, Davis

• Policy Repositioning and Affective Polarization: A Ten Arm Randomized Experiment - Andrew Gooch, Rowan University