Reducing Affective Polarization: Warm Group Relations or Policy Compromise?

被引:70
作者
Huddy, Leonie [1 ]
Yair, Omer [2 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794 USA
[2] Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
关键词
affective polarization; partisanship; experiment; leader relations; issue compromise; SOCIAL IDENTITY; LEADERSHIP; BIPARTISANSHIP; INCIVILITY; IDEOLOGY; EXPOSURE;
D O I
10.1111/pops.12699
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Hostility between rival political partisans, referred to as affective polarization, has increased in the United States over the last several decades generating considerable interest in its reduction. The current study examines two distinct sets of factors that potentially reduce affective polarization, drawn respectively from a group-based and a policy-based model of its origins. Specifically, we contrast the degree to which warm social relations and policy compromise reduce affective polarization. In two experimental studies (N = 937), respondents read a mock news story about an observed interaction between Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, and Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader. The leaders either interact in a warm or hostile manner and independently compromise, or fail to compromise, on immigration matters. In both studies, warm leader relations reduced affective polarization whereas policy compromise did not. We consider the implications of these findings for the study of affective polarization and its reduction.
引用
收藏
页码:291 / 309
页数:19
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]  
Achen Christopher., 2016, DEMOCRACY REALISTS W
[2]   The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party Composition and Their Consequences [J].
Ahler, Douglas J. ;
Sood, Gaurav .
JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 2018, 80 (03) :964-981
[3]  
Arceneaux K., 2017, Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability, DOI [DOI 10.1017/9781108227643, 10.1017/9781108227643]
[4]   Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization [J].
Banda, Kevin K. ;
Cluverius, John .
ELECTORAL STUDIES, 2018, 56 :90-101
[5]   The Correlates of Discord: Identity, Issue Alignment, and Political Hostility in Polarized America [J].
Bougher, Lori D. .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2017, 39 (03) :731-762
[6]   An integrative theory of intergroup contact [J].
Brown, R ;
Hewstone, M .
ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, VOL 37, 2005, 37 :255-343
[7]   Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? [J].
Clifford, Scott ;
Jewell, Ryan M. ;
Waggoner, Philip D. .
RESEARCH & POLITICS, 2015, 2 (04)
[8]   Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach [J].
Coppock, Alexander .
POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2019, 7 (03) :613-628
[9]   WHAT DO WE MEASURE WHEN WE MEASURE AFFECTIVE POLARIZATION? [J].
Druckman, James N. ;
Levendusky, Matthew S. .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2019, 83 (01) :114-122
[10]   How Incivility on Partisan Media (De)Polarizes the Electorate [J].
Druckman, James N. ;
Gubitz, S. R. ;
Lloyd, Ashley M. ;
Levendusky, Matthew S. .
JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 2019, 81 (01) :291-295