Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization

The polarization debate in the U.S. focuses on whether policy preferences have intensified. Maximalists claim that views are more extreme, while minimalists argue that most Americans are centrist, viewing partisan sorting as the issue. This paper introduces social distance as a measure of polarization, indicating heightened dislike between Republicans and Democrats, often unrelated to policy attitudes and influenced by campaign messaging.

Evidence shows increasing polarization among American political elites over four decades, evidenced by voting patterns, party ratings, and surveys. Some suggest elite polarization originates from institutional changes, not mass polarization, and the median voter is often centrist. However, ideological moderates are declining, with a notable increase in the ideological gap between parties from 1972 to 2004. Social identity theory suggests that party identification evokes both in-group favor and out-group dislike, with biases rooted in campaign exposure.

The paper examines affective polarization through surveys and other studies comparing U.S. levels to those in the U.K., demonstrating that Americans exhibit stronger partisan animus. Factors contributing to this animus include negative advertising and media coverage. Research design involves assessing trends in inter-party conflict and social distance since 1960, revealing Americans maintain a greater social distance than their U.K. counterparts. Ratings of positive and negative traits of party supporters indicate stronger partisan identities and increased negative stereotyping over time. The analysis explores whether ideological differences spill into affective polarization, confirming that campaign negativity inflates partisan animus, indicating a significant rise in divisive political sentiment.