Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 731–762 | Cite as

The Correlates of Discord: Identity, Issue Alignment, and Political Hostility in Polarized America

  • Lori D. Bougher
Original Paper

Abstract

The American public remains largely moderate on many issues, but incivility and hostility are rife in American politics. In this paper, I argue that the alignment of multiple issue attitudes along the traditional ideological spectrum helps explain the asymmetrical rise in negative political affect. I introduce belief congruence theory as a supplemental theoretical framework to social identity theory. Cross-sectional data reveal a significant association between issue alignment and negative out-party affect that is neither mediated nor moderated by partisan identity. A first-difference approach using two panel studies then addresses potential heterogeneity bias by testing a change-on-change model within individuals. Both panels, which are from different time periods, covering different issues, reveal significant associations between issue alignment and outgroup dislike. In contrast, partisan identity was only significantly associated with ingroup affect. This work suggests that cross-cutting issue preferences could help attenuate political hostility and reiterate the need to reconsider the role of issue-based reasoning in polarized America.

Keywords

Political polarization Social identity theory Belief congruence theory Issue alignment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their instructive recommendations. I also thank Matt Levendusky, Markus Prior, Kabir Khanna, Katie McCabe, Guarav Sood, and Sean Westwood for their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abrams, S. J., & Fiorina, M. P. (2015). Are leaning independents just weak partisans under another name? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bafumi, J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. Journal of Politics, 71, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 408–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In R. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, ingroup conflict, and conflict reduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, R. J. (1984). The role of similarity in intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension (Vol. 2, pp. 603–623). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, R. J. (1996). Tajfel’s contribution to the reduction of intergroup conflict. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 169–189). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Federico, C. M., & Hunt, C. V. (2013). Political information, political involvement, and reliance on ideology in political evaluation. Political Behavior, 35(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Federico, C. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture war? The myth of polarized America (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garner, A., & Palmer, H. (2011). Polarization and issue consistency over time. Political Behavior, 33, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendyk, E. (2012). Justifying party identification: A case of identifying with the “lesser of two evils”. Political Behavior, 34, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huddy, L. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. Levy (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 737–773). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Insko, C. A., Nacoste, R. W., & Moe, J. L. (1983). Belief congruence and racial discrimination: Review of the evidence and critical evaluation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klar, S. (2014). Identity importance and political engagement among American independents. Political Psychology, 35(4), 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics: How American disdain for parties leads to political inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levendusky, M. (2009). Partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and Conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pew Research Center. (2016). Partisanship and political animosity. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  36. Putz, D. W. (2002). Partisan conversion in the 1990s: Ideological realignment meets measurement theory. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1199–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016). How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior, 38, 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Rokeach, M., & Mezei, L. (1966). Race and shared belief as factors in social choice. Science, 151(3707), 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smidt, C. D. (2015). Polarization and the decline of the American floating voter. American Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stoker, L., & Jennings, M. K. (2008). Of time and the development of partisan polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctiveness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  48. Therriault, A., Tucker, J. A., & Brader, T. (2011). Cross-pressures and political participation. Paper 23, Conference Proceedings at OpenSIUC.Google Scholar
  49. Vaisey, S., & Miles, A. (2014). What you can—and can’t—do with three-wave panel data. Sociological Methods & Research. doi: 10.1177/0049124114547769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Study of Democratic PoliticsWoodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations