Running Head: POLITICAL POLARIZATION 1

Polarization in the Contemporary Political and Media Landscape

Anne E. Wilsona

Victoria A. Parkerb

Matthew Feinbergc
a
Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5

[email protected]
b
Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5,

[email protected]
c
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario,

Canada M5S 3E6 [email protected]

Highlights

 Affective polarization (opponent dislike) is on the rise in America, but some of the

ideological divide amongst the electorate is illusory, reflecting false polarization

 Political elites are polarizing, and partisan media and social media also select for

polarizing content

 Political and media landscape shapes public misperceptions of how polarized political

opponents actually are

Political Polarization 2
Political Polarization 3

Abstract

Political polarization is on the rise in America. Although social psychologists frequently study

the intergroup underpinnings of polarization, they have traditionally had less to say about macro

societal processes that contribute to its rise and fall. Recent cross-disciplinary work on the

contemporary political and media landscape provides these complementary insights. In this

paper, we consider the evidence for and implications of political polarization, distinguishing

between ideological, affective, and false polarization. We review three key societal-level factors

contributing to these polarization phenomena: the role of political elites, partisan media, and

social media dynamics. We argue that institutional polarization processes (elites, media and

social media) contribute to people’s misperceptions of division among the electorate, which in

turn can contribute to a self-perpetuating cycle fueling animosity (affective polarization) and

actual ideological polarization over time.

Political Polarization 4

Sixty years ago in America, only a tiny minority of Americans considered politics a deal-breaker

for a happy marriage. By 2010, opposition to cross-party unions had shot up to 49% of

Republicans and 33% of Democrats [1]. This rising animosity is just one indicator of the

increasing political polarization that has attracted the scrutiny and concern of scholars, pundits,

and political leaders themselves, with former President Obama identifying polarization as one of

the top three worries keeping him up at night [59].1 The term political polarization, however, is

a broad label that can refer to several distinct phenomena at both the individual level

(perceptions of partisans in the electorate) and the institutional level (e.g., amongst political elites

and media). We have three goals in this review: 1) to identify and review evidence for distinct

types of polarization among both the electorate and institutions, 2) to offer one possible model

(see Figure 1) describing how these types of polarization may be connected in a self-reinforcing

cycle, and 3) to speculate on some downstream consequences of polarization worthy of further

investigation.

Types of Polarization Among the Electorate

When we state that political polarization is on the rise in the American electorate, what do we

mean? First, partisans increasing rejection of political opponents as spouses (as well as friends

and neighbors [2]) reflects rising affective polarization, which is the degree to which political

partisans dislike, distrust, and avoid the other side [2,3]. This widening divide – a gap that

doubled from 1978 to 2016 [2] – is not driven by increasing warmth toward own party, but rather

due to rising animosity toward opponents, a phenomenon known as negative partisanship

1
We focus this review on the US, but comparable patterns have been observed in other nations

worldwide [4] with implications for effective functioning of democracies [5].

Political Polarization 5

[16,17]. Second, partisans could also be increasingly divided with regard to their preferred policy

positions, a phenomenon known as ideological polarization. Although researchers debate the

extent of genuine ideological polarization among the electorate [13,14] – a debate we will not

resolve here – by some estimates this rift in policy preference has risen modestly over time [12].

However, we also point to a third polarization phenomenon: the degree to which partisans

overestimate the ideological division between their side and their opponents’. Evidence suggests

that partisans increasingly believe the ideological divide to be far wider than it actually is – a

phenomenon called perceived or false polarization [12].

How are Types of Polarization Connected?

Is increasing cross-party animosity due to a spiraling rift in the ideological convictions of the

electorate? It appears not. Partisans often oppose one another vehemently even when there is

little actual daylight between their policy preferences [6], which are often tenuously held and

contextually malleable [61]. Ideological polarization does not always rise in tandem with

affective polarization [15] and there is little evidence that the increasingly intense animosity is

fueled by the modest shifts in policy support amongst average voters.

However, animosity toward opponents may be determined less by what members of the

opponent party actually believe than what perceivers think they believe. Accordingly, rising

affective polarization may be better understood by taking into account false polarization. It may

be that misconceptions about the opponent group –including the (mistaken) belief that opponents

hold views impossibly at odds with one’s own – is a more powerful determinant of out-group

dislike and distrust than actual opponent attitudes [15,20,21]. Stated more bluntly, people may

dislike political opponents primarily for deplorable positions that most of those opponents do not

actually hold.
Political Polarization 6

We also speculate that some attitudes may be more prone to miscalibration than others.

Specifically, we contend that false polarization may be particularly evident for vivid, extreme,

and egregious opponent positions that characterize the worst of the other side [12,22], and less

pronounced for more mundane policy views. Most partisans correctly recognize that Republicans

are more pro-gun and Democrats more pro-universal healthcare on average, so judging these

attitudes to be prevalent is not an overestimate. In contrast, Democrats dramatically

overestimated the percentage of Republicans with anti-Muslim sentiment, and Republicans far

overestimated the share of Democrats who agreed that all police were bad people [22]. Believing

that a large share of the opponent party endorses views one finds not just objectionable but

morally appalling is especially likely to heighten animosity. Indeed, if those cross-party

assessments were accurate, one could deem this aversion to be justifiable; however if these

perceptions are substantially inaccurate, then animosity may be in large part misplaced.

Does this Polarization Matter?

Political polarization in itself is not a bad thing, and there is value in sharp disagreement in a

system intended to represent the diverse interests of the electorate. We do not suggest that

centrism or compromise are always preferable alternatives to polarization. Nonetheless, there is

good reason to worry about how profound animosity between parties – especially a miscalibrated

animosity based largely on illusory rifts - might affect a functioning democracy. For example,

opponent-party animosity may lead people to accept their party’s policy stances (even terrible

ones) more out of disdain for opponents than endorsement for the position [16]. Experimental

studies demonstrate that voters often support party over policy, endorsing a position when it

comes from their side but rejecting the identical proposal when it originates across the aisle

[7,8,9]. Critically, these patterns are exacerbated under conditions of high polarization. In one
Political Polarization 7

study [10], respondents evaluated a policy bolstered by either strong, persuasive arguments – or

weak ones. When respondents were led to believe parties were relatively unpolarized on the

issues, they weighed the strength of arguments in deciding policy support. When respondents

believed polarization was high, they ignored argument strength and simply voted in lockstep

with their party.

This has profound implications. If the electorate actually weighs evidence for or against policy

positions, politicians have incentive to develop strong, persuasive proposals. However, if

polarization exacerbates partisans’ already-robust tendency to reach motivated conclusions in

support of their party [11], political elites with the weakest policy positions (policies unlikely to

gain popular appeal on their own merit) will be most tempted to amplify polarization to ensure

the loyalty of their base.

Why is Polarization on the Rise?

Social psychologists have documented the psychological and intergroup underpinnings of false

polarization, demonstrating how groups often believe themselves to be more divided than they

really are, resulting in blindness to often-substantial common ground [15,25,26,27]. However,

these basic processes alone offer an incomplete account of why false polarization is currently on

the rise. A cross-disciplinary lens helps to explain its steep increase by considering temporal

changes in the political landscape and media ecosystem that feed an illusion of stark polarization

among the electorate far outstripping actual disagreement. Specifically, we argue that increases

in real and apparent institutional polarization (among political elites, partisan media and social

media) may meaningfully account for the intensification of false polarization among the

electorate. We contend that political elites have become both more polarized themselves and

more incentivized to stoke polarization among voters, that partisan media selectively portrays
Political Polarization 8

political opponents in caricatured and polarizing ways, and that via social media people actively

contribute to shaping a political landscape that disproportionately reinforces and amplifies

extremity and outrage.

Elite Polarization

Political elites may contribute to polarization amongst the electorate both directly as a result of

increasingly polarized ideological positions and actions [34,35], and due to elites’ deliberate

attempts to fuel animosity. In contrast to ideological polarization in the electorate, polarization

among American political elites is no illusion. Polarization in voting patterns and absence of

cross-party co-operation has become increasingly stark among American politicians over several

decades [28]. The result of elite polarization has too frequently been gridlock as elites prioritize

partisan wins over the needs of constituents. Notably, some analyses indicate that polarization

among political elites is markedly asymmetrical, with Republican elites moving further right and

displaying less willingness to compromise while Democrat elites hold the center [29,30].2

Partisans may assume that their opponents in the electorate hold views in alignment with their

more extreme political elites. However, judging average voters on the basis of their elites can

contribute to false polarization among the electorate because voters a) may not be well-informed

about either side’s actual policy positions or degree of polarization, b) often do not share the

extreme positions held by some elites, and c) may vote for a party due to single-issue policy

2
It is worth noting that although we consider misperceptions of partisans from both sides of the
ideological divide, this analysis does not require an assumption of equal bias. We acknowledge
partisan bias exists on both sides [31]; yet cautions about false equivalence are well-taken [32].
We do not aim to resolve this debate, but contend that regardless of potential asymmetries, there
is reason to predict that partisans on both sides may misperceive the extremity of average
members of the opponent party.
Political Polarization 9

support (e.g., abortion regulations) even if it means overlooking many party positions with which

they disagree [33,36,62].

Political elites may also contribute to polarization by deliberately fueling it with incivility and

vitriolic political campaigns. Even though voters typically disapprove of such tactics, they serve

both to demonize opponents and to activate opponent anger and animosity [38,39]. Indeed,

political elites may be motivated to stoke these divisions because party loyalty increases under

conditions of high polarization [10] and because dislike, distrust and anger toward opponents is

often a more powerful driver of political attitudes, allegiance, and action than fondness for own

party [16,18,19]. Accordingly, political elites may gain more ground by whipping up fury and

fear toward opponents than by behaving laudably. More concerning still, reliance on these

polarizing strategies may be especially tempting for political elites when their actions and policy

preferences do not benefit the majority of their constituents. Elites with the weakest substantive

positions may be especially inclined to turn to a variety of divisive tactics (negative partisanship

among them) to ensure the loyalty of their base.3

Media Polarization

We also contend that changes in the media landscape contribute to increased polarization [40,

43]. American media has seen a proliferation of increasingly partisan media including a

widening array of online news sources of varying dubiousness. Whereas news in an earlier era

was biased toward neutrality and inoffensiveness to capture the largest audience share, in the

3
Some scholars have observed that US political elites – and especially Republicans - have
increasingly favored policy benefiting economic and corporate elites who, in an era of dramatic
economic inequality, have used their outsized resources to exert ever more political influence
[60]. Under these conditions, Republicans espouse economic policies (like tax cuts for the
wealthy) that are not in fact popular with a majority of their electorate. This “conservative’s
dilemma” creates a context in which Republicans may be especially incentivized to fostering
division and polarization as a substitute for policies that could win support on their own merit.
Political Polarization 10

current high-choice media environment the bias is toward standing out amongst a sea of options

[41], which in itself may push for greater polarization [42]. Of particular theoretical interest is

the media model described as the “outrage industry” [43], which selectively amplifies extreme

incidents and depicts opponents in an optimally unflattering light. For example, cherry-picked

instances of campus progressives behaving illiberally (e.g., deplatformings) are shared with

disproportionate frequency in right-wing media bemoaning liberal “snowflakes” or “social

justice warriors;” left-wing media in turn prioritizes coverage of the relatively rare but

unquestionably egregious incidents of white nationalism and other overt bigotry, sometimes

casting these acts as reflective of the entire conservative base. This selective reporting style may

play a key role in exacerbating misconceptions about opponents and increasing polarization [43].

Evidence suggests that media framing and partisan media consumption contribute to negative

misperceptions of opponents and to false polarization [20,22,44].

The current media landscape can both serve and intensify partisan bias. People actively seek out,

trust, and share content that confirms their pre-existing biases and have an increasingly tailored

selection of sources to choose from. Further, traditional trust in mainstream media as a source of

factual (even if slanted) information has fallen sharply with the rise of “fake news” discourse.

Although the perception of media bias against one’s party is a long-documented cognitive

illusion [45], rising mistrust in mainstream media reduces its value as a means of establishing a

shared factual reality. A recent Knight Foundation survey [46] revealed that most Americans

could not name even one news source they considered objective, though among Republicans

who gave an answer, 60% chose Fox News as “most objective” (a view decidedly unaligned with

the evidence [53]). Classic confirmation bias and motivated reasoning processes [11,47] may be
Political Polarization 11

super-charged in the current media context where any unwelcome factual information can be

easily dismissed as untrustworthy or fake.

Social Media Polarization

The line between traditional media and social media is blurry at best, with an increasing

proportion of people getting their news from social media. We offer only a brief sketch of the

online landscape and how it may contribute to polarization. As active consumers and producers

of online content, people can curate and co-create their social and informational ecosystems

more easily than ever. However, people may misjudge what they see online as representative of

the real world in ways that fuel polarization. First, outraged and polarizing moralized content is

especially likely to be amplified and spread online [37,48], leading people’s impressions of

opponents to be shaped by atypically extreme but salient outliers. Social media is fertile ground

for expressing ingroup allegiance and punishing transgressors [49,50], but when these dynamics

go viral the impression made by a single fringe member of an opponent group can be multiplied

exponentially. For example, a single racist tweet, or a single post of the feminist hashtag

#killallmen may be shared and decried by offended opponents thousands of times, making it

increasingly difficult to disentangle degree of amplification from the actual prevalence of these

attitudes.

There is ongoing, unresolved debate regarding whether social media contributes to polarization

by limiting exposure to ideological diversity (i.e., “echo chambers”) and whether increasing

exposure to diverse viewpoints mitigates or worsens polarization [51,52]. The answer is likely “it

depends,” and precise mechanisms are not yet clear. Research is only beginning to document the

magnitude of the effects of political micro-targeting, fake news, bots, trolls, and algorithms that

select for outrage [53]. For the purposes of our analysis, we simply highlight the potential for
Political Polarization 12

social media dynamics to amplify the most polarizing voices, increasing people’s misplaced

conviction that their partisan opponents are monsters. It may be too soon to say how polarization

will be shaped by lives lived online, but because of their reach and malleability, online platforms

have the potential to be profoundly consequential.

Polarization feedback loops

In Figure 1 we offer one potential model connecting various types of polarization into a self-

reinforcing cycle. We suggest that rising institutional polarization (among elites, media and

social media) selectively amplify the worst the other side has to offer, which can feed directly

into rising false polarization among the electorate over time via basic psychological processes

such as the availability heuristic [55], and out-group homogeneity effects [56]. In turn, false

polarization – especially misperceptions of opponents’ most egregious attitudes – can intensify

outgroup dislike, increasing affective polarization [23]. What about actual ideological

polarization? We speculate that increasing affective polarization (especially outgroup dislike)

may more often be a cause, rather than a consequence, of ideological polarization over time

[16,24] as partisans blindly maintain allegiance with their side out of the conviction that the other

side is immeasurably worse. These types of polarization may be connected in a feedback loop

starting with institutions stoking polarization and eventually leading to actual increases in party

division over time (which could in turn further encourage continued polarization among elites

and media).

Additional Downstream Consequences of Polarization

We identify three additional downstream consequences of these phenomena that deserve

research attention as potential mechanisms reinforcing the proposed feedback loop. First, as

people encounter increasingly extreme positions held either by their elites or the political fringe
Political Polarization 13

of their party, negative partisanship may nudge them toward justifying more and more extreme

own-party attitudes through processes of cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning [10].

Many partisans may privately struggle with the transgressions and extreme policies of their party

elites (from accusations of sexual assault to inhumane border detention conditions), but when

faced with the alternatives of rationalizing their party or rejecting it, the latter may be

unthinkable to the extent that they believe their opponents to be even more monstrous. This

dissonance could push people to double down, excusing even the more egregious policies and

scandals that would have seemed unthinkable in the recent past.

Second, because we argue that many of the worst impressions of opponents are miscalibrated,

opportunities to interact with opponents could help correct misconceptions. However, affective

polarization fosters distrust and avoidance of opponents [2,3], which may ironically foreclose the

opportunity to disconfirm misperceptions as people become more and more likely to keep their

distance. Third, we speculate that this polarized environment – perhaps especially online - selects

for and rewards actors who are willing to express extreme and outrageous views [54]. More

moderate partisans may be repelled by this polarized landscape and hesitate to publicly voice

dissent. If this form of self-silencing occurs, it leaves public space to be filled – and public

impressions formed - primarily by those on the extremes.

Conclusions

Rising elite political polarization has been implicated as a threat to democracy [4,5] and can

impede effective action on some of the world’s most urgent problems [9,57]. The current review

considers causes and consequences of rising polarization (real and illusory) among the general

public. If the public polarizes further, political and media elites will have even greater incentives

to fuel the division. Although party disagreement is an essential part of the political process,
Political Polarization 14

polarization and animosity based on misconceptions of the other side threatens to misdiagnose

problems, leading people to battle imagined enemies and distracting from opportunities for

transformative reform [58].

Political Polarization 15

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as
*of special interest
**of outstanding interest

[1] Iyengar S, Sood G, Lelkes Y: Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on
Polarization. Public Opin Q 2012, 76:405–431.
[2**] Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, Westwood SJ: The Origins and
Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annu Rev Polit Sci 2019,
22:129–146.
Extensive review of evidence for changing affective polarization in the United States and
indepth exploration of its consequences
[3] Chen MK, Rohla R: The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family
ties. Science (80- ) 2018, 360:1020 LP – 1024.
[4] Carothers T, O’Donohue A: Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political
Polarization. Brookings Institution Press; 2019.
[5] Levitsky S, Ziblatt D: How Democracies Die. Crown; 2018.
[6] Mason L: Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago
Press; 2018.
[7] Cohen GL: Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political
Beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003, 85:808–822.
[8] Barber M, Pope JC: Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in
America. Am Polit Sci Rev 2019, 113:38–54.
[9*] Van Boven L, Ehret PJ, Sherman DK: Psychological Barriers to Bipartisan Public
Support for Climate Policy. Perspect Psychol Sci 2018, 13:492–507.
Describes evidence of how polarization shapes policy rejection or support for climate
change mitigation. Authors demonstrate that there is more common ground than
recognized with regard to concern over climate change, but party allegiance impedes
progress toward solutions.
[10] Druckman JN, Peterson E, Slothuus R: How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public
Opinion Formation. American Political Science Review 2013, 107:57–79.
[11] Kahan DM, Peters E, Dawson EC, Slovic P: Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-
government. Behav Public Policy 2017, 1:54–86.
[12] Westfall J, Van Boven L, Chambers JR, Judd CM: Perceiving Political Polarization in the
United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived
Partisan Divide. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015, 10:145–158.
[13] Abramowitz AI, Saunders KL: Is Polarization a Myth? J Polit 2008, 70:542–555.
[14] Fiorina MP, Abrams SA, Pope JC: Polarization in the American Public: Misconceptions
and Misreadings. J Polit 2008, 70:556–560.
[15] Levendusky MS, Malhotra N: (Mis)perceptions of Partisan Polarization in the American
Public. Public Opin Q 2015, 80:378–391.
[16**] Abramowitz AI, Webster SW: Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties
But Behave Like Rabid Partisans. Polit Psychol 2018, 39:119–135.
Provides compelling evidence that dislike for opponent party fuels affective polarization
and drives policy support and party loyalty over and above ideology.
Political Polarization 16

[17] Iyengar S, Westwood SJ: Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on
Group Polarization. Am J Pol Sci 2015, 59:690–707
[18] Iyengar S, Krupenkin M: The Strengthening of Partisan Affect. Polit Psychol 2018,
39:201–218.
[19] Miller PR, Conover PJ: Red and Blue States of Mind: Partisan Hostility and Voting in
the United States. Polit Res Q 2015, 68:225–239.
[20*] Ahler DJ, Sood G: The Parties in Our Heads: Misperceptions about Party
Composition and Their Consequences. J Polit 2018, 80:964–981.
Demonstrates that partisans have dramatic misunderstandings of the demographic
makeup of the opponent party, wildly overestimating the proportion of those with
stereotypical social identities (e.g., dramatically overestimating the percentage of
LGBTQ Democrats, Rich White Republicans)
[21*] Enders AM, Armaly MT: The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived
Polarization. Polit Behav 2019, 41:815–839.
Demonstrates that cross-partisan liking and trust are predicted more by perceived (false)
polarization than by actual ideological polarization
[22*] Yudkin D, Hawkins S, Dixon T: The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are
Pulling Americans Apart. More in Common 2019,
This report demonstrates the “perception gap” between what partisans actually believe
and what opponents think they believe, and traces the effect of partisan media on these
misperceptions.
[23] Levendusky M, Malhotra N: Does Media Coverage of Partisan Polarization Affect
Political Attitudes? Polit Commun 2016, 33:283–301.
[24] Ahler DJ: Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization. J Polit 2014, 76:607–
620.
[25] Blatz CW, Mercier B: False Polarization and False Moderation: Political Opponents
Overestimate the Extremity of Each Other’s Ideologies but Underestimate Each Other’s
Certainty. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2017, 9:521–529.
[26] Chambers JR, Baron RS, Inman ML: Misperceptions in Intergroup Conflict: Disagreeing
About What We Disagree About. Psychol Sci 2006, 17:38–45.
[27] Robinson RJ, Keltner D, Ward A, Ross L: Actual versus assumed differences in
construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995,
68:404–417.
[28] Andris C, Lee D, Hamilton MJ, Martino M, Gunning CE, Selden JA: The Rise of
Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives. PLoS One 2015,
10:e0123507.
[29] Hacker JS, Pierson P: American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget
What Made America Prosper. Simon & Schuster; 2017.
[30] Mann TE, Ornstein NJ: It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional
System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. Basic Books; 2016.
[31] Ditto PH, Liu BS, Clark CJ, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, Grady RH, Celniker JB, Zinger JF: At
Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and
Conservatives. Perspect Psychol Sci 2018, 14:273–291.
Political Polarization 17

[32] Baron J, Jost JT: False Equivalence: Are Liberals and Conservatives in the United
States Equally Biased? Perspect Psychol Sci 2019, 14:292–303.
[33] Rogowski JC, Sutherland JL: How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization. Polit Behav
2016, 38:485–508.
[34] Levendusky MS: Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.
Polit Behav 2010, 32:111–131.
[35] Webster SW, Abramowitz AI: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in
the U.S. Electorate. Am Polit Res 2017, 45:621–647.
[36] Dancey L, Sheagley G: Partisanship and Perceptions of Party-Line Voting in Congress.
Polit Res Q 2017, 71:32–45.
[37] Brady, WJ, Wills JA, Burkart D, Jost JT, Van Bavel JJ: An Ideological Asymmetry in the
Diffusion of Moralized Content on Social Media Among Political Leaders. J Exp Psychol
Gen 2019, 148:1802–1813.
[38] Frimer JA, Skitka LJ: The Montagu Principle: Incivility decreases politicians’ public
approval, even with their political base. J Pers Soc Psychol 2018, 115:845–866.
[39] Gervais BT: More than Mimicry? The Role of Anger in Uncivil Reactions to Elite
Political Incivility. Int J Public Opin Res 2016, 29:384–405.
[40] Druckman JN, Levendusky MS, McLain A: No Need to Watch: How the Effects of
Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions. Am J Pol Sci 2018, 62:99–112.
[41] Klein E: Why We’re Polarized. Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster; 2020.
[42] Lelkes Y, Sood G, Iyengar S: The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband
Internet on Partisan Affect. Am J Pol Sci 2017, 61:5–20.
[43] Berry JM, Sobieraj S: The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New
Incivility. Oxford University Press; 2013.
[44] Han J, Yzer M: Media-induced misperception further divides public opinion: A test of
self-categorization theory of attitude polarization. J Media Psychol Theor Methods, Appl
2019, doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000259.
[45] Vallone RP, Ross L, Lepper MR: The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and
perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985,
49:577–585.
[46] American views: Trust, media and democracy. Knight Foundation 2017.
[47*] Van Bavel JJ, Pereira A: The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political
Belief. Trends Cogn Sci 2018, 22:213–224.
Outlines the basic psychological underpinnings of intergroup perception and explores
how they play out in political groups.
[48] Brady WJ, Crockett M, Van Bavel JJ: The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The role of
motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. 2019,
doi:10.31234/osf.io/pz9g6.
[49] Brady WJ, Wills JA, Jost JT, Tucker JA, Van Bavel JJ: Emotion shapes the diffusion of
moralized content in social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2017, 114:7313 LP – 7318.
[50] Crockett MJ: Moral outrage in the digital age. Nat Hum Behav 2017, 1:769–771.
[51] Bail CA, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H, Hunzaker MBF, Lee J, Mann M,
Merhout F, Volfovsky A: Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political
polarization. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2018, 115:9216 LP – 9221.
[52] Flaxman S, Goel S, Rao JM: Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News
Consumption. Public Opin Q 2016, 80:298–320.
Political Polarization 18

[53] Benkler Y, Faris R, Roberts H: Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and

Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press; 2018.
[54] Frimer JA, Brandt MJ, Melton Z, Motyl M: Extremists on the Left and Right Use Angry,
Negative Language. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 2018, 45:1216–1231.
[55] Tversky A, Kahneman D: Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and
probability. Cogn Psychol 1973, 5:207–232.
[56] Rubin M, Badea C: They’re All the Same!. . . but for Several Different Reasons: A
Review of the Multicausal Nature of Perceived Group Variability. Curr Dir Psychol Sci
2012, 21:367–372.
[57] Kahan D: Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature 2012, 488:255.
[58] McCoy J, Rahman T, Somer M: Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy:
Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities. Am
Behav Sci 2018, 62:16–42.
[59] Pitrelli MB: 3 Things that Keep Barack Obama up at Night. CNBC Dec 16 2019.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/barack-obama-on-worrying-trends-political-polarization-
climate-change-social-media.html
[60] Hacker JS, Pierson P: Let them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme
Inequality. Liveright/Norton; 2020.
[61] Feinberg MF, Tullett AM, Mensch Z, Hart W, Gottlieb S: The Political Reference Point:
How Geography Shapes Political Identity. PLoS ONE 2017, 12(2): e0171497.
[62] Achen CH, Bartels LM: Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce
Responsive Government. Princeton University Press; 2016.
Political Polarization 19

Institutional (elite,
media & social
media)
polarization

Ideological
False polarization
polarization

Affective
polarization

Figure 1. Possible theoretical model of causal connections between types of polarization. Rising
institutional polarization among political elites, partisan media and social media can produce
false (illusory) polarization among the electorate. False polarization can in turn fuel affective
polarization (especially opponent-party dislike), which may over time foster actual ideological
polarization as people become more loyal to own party in the face of increasing animosity for
opponents.