Content area
Full text
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = Polit Behav (2016) 38:485508
DOI 10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Jon C. Rogowski1 Joseph L. Sutherland2
Published online: 28 October 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Scholars have reached mixed conclusions about the implications of increased political polarization for citizen decision-making. In this paper, we argue that citizens respond to ideological divergence with heightened affective polarization. Using a survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens, we nd that increased ideological differences between political gures produce increasingly polarized affective evaluations, and that these differences are especially large among respondents with stronger ideological commitments and higher levels of political interest. We provide further support for these ndings in an observational study of citizens evaluations of the U.S. Senators from their state. We also nd that the polarizing effects of ideological differences can be largely mitigated with biographical information about the public ofcials, which suggests that the pernicious consequences of ideological polarization can be overcome by focusing on matters other than political disagreement.
Keywords Polarization Ideology Electoral competition Affect
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7
Web End =10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7 ) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
& Jon C. Rogowski [email protected]
Joseph L. Sutherland [email protected]
1 Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive,
Campus Box 1063, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
2 Department of Political Science, Columbia University, 7th Floor, IAB, 420 West 118th Street, Mail Code 3320, New York, NY 10018, USA
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7&domain=pdf
Web End = How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization
123
486 Polit Behav (2016) 38:485508
Introduction
In an era of heightened elite polarization, the publics evaluations of political ofcials and the policies they endorse have similarly become increasingly polarized. A growing literature documents the gulf in public opinion toward recent presidents George W. Bush (Abramowitz and Stone 2006; Jacobson 2003) and Barack Obama (Jacobson 2011). For instance, during the Obama administration, deeply polarized attitudes toward the president often manifested in challenges to Obamas American citizenship and religious convictions.1 Not only do republicans and democrats support their own candidates...