Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 1, pages 560–576 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Healthy democratic polities feature competing visions of a good society but also require some level of cooperation and institutional trust. Democracy is at risk when citizens become so polarized that an ‘us versus them’ mentality dominates. Despite a vast multidisciplinary literature, no coherent conceptual framework of the microlevel dynamics that increase or decrease polarization has been presented. In this Review, we provide a conceptual framework to integrate scientific knowledge about cognitive–motivational mechanisms that influence political polarization and the social-communicative contexts in which they are enacted. Ego-justifying and group-justifying motives lead individuals to defend their own pre-existing beliefs and those of their in-group, respectively. However, a distinct class of system-justifying motives contributes to asymmetric forms of polarization. Whereas conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change. These cognitive–motivational mechanisms interact with social influence processes linked to communication source, message and channel factors, all of which might contribute to increased or decreased polarization. We conclude with a discussion of unanswered questions and ways in which our framework can be extended to the study of culture and institutions.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Three types of mass polarization.
Fig. 2: Two-step flow model of polarization.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Diamond, L., Drutman, L., Lindberg, T., Kalmoe, N. P. & Mason, L. Opinion: Americans increasingly believe violence is justified if the other side wins. Politico (1 October, 2020).

  2. Drutman, L. Breaking the Two-party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  3. Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020). This article discusses the causes and consequences of a concept related to affective polarization — political sectarianism — which involves othering, aversion and moralization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pew Research Center. Large majority of the public views prosecution of capitol rioters as ‘very important’. Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/03/18/large-majority-of-the-public-views-prosecution-of-capitol-rioters-as-very-important/ (2021).

  5. Sartori, G. Parties And Party Systems: A Framework For Analysis Vol. 1 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976).

  6. Fiorina, M. P. The decline of collective responsibility in American politics. Daedalus 109, 25–45 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Heltzel, G. & Laurin, K. Polarization in America: two possible futures. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 179–184 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Baldassarri, D. & Gelman, A. Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am. J. Sociol. 114, 408–446 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abramowitz, A. I. Transformation and polarization: the 2008 presidential election and the new American electorate. Elect. Stud. 29, 594–603 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. Polarized America: the Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (MIT Press, 2016).

  11. McCoy, J., Rahman, T. & Somer, M. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic politics. Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 16–42 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vegetti, F. The political nature of ideological polarization: the case of Hungary. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 681, 78–96 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L. & Westwood S. J. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Am. J. Polit. Sci. (in the press).

  14. Gollwitzer, A. et al. Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1186–1197 (2020). This analysis of geotracking data of 15 million smartphones per day indicated that people in conservative and Republican (versus liberal and Democratic) counties exhibited 14% less physical distancing in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and partisan and ideological differences in physical distancing predicted higher infection rates and increased mortality in pro-Trump counties.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 28–38 (2021). This study shows that levels of partisan animosity measured before the COVID-19 pandemic affected policy beliefs during the pandemic, revealing that affective polarization can influence issue polarization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fridman, A., Gershon, R. & Gneezy, A. COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: a longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 16, e0250123 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lang, J., Erickson, W. W. & Jing-Schmidt, Z. #MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital polarization of mask-wearing in the United States during COVID-19. PLoS ONE 16, e0250817 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Raymond, L., Kelly, D. & Hennes, E. Norm-based governance for a new era: collective action in the face of hyper-politicization. Persp. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721003054 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sieber, J. & Ziegler, R. Group polarization revisited: a processing effort account. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45, 1482–1498 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S. & Nisbett, R. E. Social Psychology Revised edn (W. W. Norton, 2016).

  21. Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C. & Davidson, B. Polarized norms and social frames of reference: a test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11, 77–100 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B. & Wetherell, M. S. Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 1–19 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sinclair, B. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks And Political Behavior (Univ. Chicago Press, 2012).

  24. Sunstein, C. Conformity: The Power Of Social Influences (New York Univ. Press, 2019).

  25. Tesser, A. Self-generated attitude change. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 11, 289–338 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200143 (2021). This article reviews work on false polarization (when partisans hold inaccurate beliefs about the other side), identifies conditions false polarization leads to actual polarization, and suggests why correcting perceptions about the other party’s beliefs can be effective.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M. & Horowitz, J. M. Party polarization in American politics: characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9, 83–110 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. On party polarization in congress. Daedalus 136, 104–107 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fiorina, M. P. & Abrams, S. J. Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 563–588 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bonica, A. Mapping the ideological marketplace. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 367–386 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hare, C. & Poole, K. T. The polarization of contemporary American politics. Polity 46, 411–429 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Abramowitz, A. I. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump (Yale Univ. Press, 2018).

  33. Neal, Z. P. A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the US Congress, 1973–2016. Soc. Netw. 60, 103–112 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bonica, A. & Sen, M. Estimating judicial ideology. J. Econ. Perspect. 35, 97–118 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Levendusky, M. The microfoundations of mass polarization. Polit. Anal. 17, 162–176 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J. & Pope, J. C. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America 3rd edn (Pearson Longman, 2010).

  37. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., Green, J. C., Herrera, R. & Cooperman, R. Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104, 324–346 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Levendusky, M. Clearer cues, more consistent voters: a benefit of elite polarization. Polit. Behav. 32, 111–131 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E. & Slothuus, R. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 107, 57–79 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Baldassarri, D. & Park, B. Was there a culture war? Partisan polarization and secular trends in US public opinion. J. Polit. 82, 809–827 (2020). This analysis of trends in public opinion in the USA over time finds partisan polarization on economic and civil rights issues, whereas opinions on moral issues followed a trend of secularization. Both Democrats and Republicans have increasingly adopted more progressive moral views, but Republicans changed their views more slowly than Democrats.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Abramowitz, A. I. & Saunders, K. L. Is polarization a myth? J. Polit. 70, 542–555 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bafumi, J. & Shapiro, R. Y. A new partisan voter. J. Polit. 71, 1–24 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jacoby, W. G. Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 108, 754–771 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. J. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 690–707 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mason, L. “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 128–145 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lelkes, Y. Mass polarization: manifestations and measurements. Public Opin. Q. 80, 392–410 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lupton, R. N., Smallpage, S. M. & Enders, A. M. Values and political predispositions in the age of polarization: examining the relationship between partisanship and ideology in the United States, 1988–2012. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 1–20 (2017). This study uses over-time data to show that alignment between ideology and partisanship has increased asymmetrically among those with conservative value orientations, presumably owing to Republican discourse emphasizing traditional family values and resistance to social change.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Webster, S. W. & Abramowitz, A. I. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. Am. Polit. Res. 45, 621–647 (2017). This article uses survey and experimental data to show that ideological beliefs (polarization) influence affective polarization, especially when it comes to social welfare issues.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J. & Bryson, B. Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? Am. J. Sociol. 102, 690–755 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Evans, J. H. Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized? An update. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 71–90 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fiorina, M. P. Unstable majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate (Hoover Press, 2017).

  53. Kinder, D. R. & Kalmoe, N. P. Neither Liberal Nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence In The American Public (Univ. Chicago Press, 2017).

  54. Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y. & Ryan, J. B. Affective polarization or partisan disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of partisanship. Public. Opin. Q. 82, 379–390 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 199–204 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hetherington, M. Putting polarization in perspective. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39, 413–448 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ahler, D. J. & Broockman, D. E. The delegate paradox: why polarized politicians can represent citizens best. J. Polit. 80, 1117–1133 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Voelkel, J. G. et al. Interventions reducing affective polarization do not improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7evmp (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Baldassarri, D. & Page, S. E. The emergence and perils of polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2116863118 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Torcal, M. & Magalhães, P. C. Ideological extremism, perceived party system polarization, and support for democracy. Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000066 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. van Baar, J. M. & FeldmanHall, O. The polarized mind in context: interdisciplinary approaches to the psychology of political polarization. Am. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000814 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lipset, S. M. & Rokkan, S. in Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives 1–64 (The Free Press, 1967).

  63. Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M. & Richeson, J. A. The pitfalls and promise of increasing racial diversity: threat, contact, and race relations in the 21st century. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 188–193 (2018). This review provides a framework for studying the impact of the growth of racial and ethnic diversity, and discusses how demographic changes can generate status threat and prejudice but could also lead to positive interpersonal contact experiences.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cox, G. W. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).

  65. Gidron, N., Adams, J. & Horne, W. American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).

  66. Stewart, A., McCarty, N. & Bryson, J. Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline. Sci. Adv. 6, eabd4201 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Mudde, C. Fighting the system? Populist radical right parties and party system change. Party Politics 20, 217–226 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lauka, A., McCoy, J. & Firat, R. B. Mass partisan polarization: measuring a relational concept. Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 107–126 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Westwood, S. J. et al. The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57, 333–354 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Harel, T. O., Jameson, J. K. & Maoz, I. The normalization of hatred: Identity, affective polarization, and dehumanization on Facebook in the context of intractable political conflict. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 1–10 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Reiljan, A. The Politics Of Differentiated Integration: What Do Governments Want? Country Report Research Paper No. RSCAS 2020/92 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3783232 (Estonia Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, 2020).

  72. McCarty, N. Polarization: What Everyone Needs To Know (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).

  73. Hacker, J. & Pierson, P. in Solutions to Political Polarization in America (ed. Persily, N.) 59–70 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  74. Grossmann, M. & Hopkins, D. A. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  75. Franks, A. S. & Hesami, F. Seeking evidence of the MAGA cult and Trump derangement syndrome: an examination of (a)symmetric political bias. Societies 11, 113 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Guth, J. L. & Nelsen, B. F. Party choice in Europe: social cleavages and the rise of populist parties. Party Politics 27, 453–464 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Park, B. How are we apart? Continuity and change in the structure of ideological disagreement in the American public, 1980–2012. Soc. Forces 96, 1757–1784 (2018). This article describes three types of ideological disagreement — polarization, partisan sorting and dimensional alignment — and analyses historical trends in US public opinion for each dimension.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Kozlowski, A. C. & Murphy, J. P. Issue alignment and partisanship in the American public: revisiting the ‘partisans without constraint’ thesis. Soc. Sci. Res. 94, 1024–98 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public. Opin. Q. 76, 405–431 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Brewer, M. B. in The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice (eds Sibley, C. G. & Barlow, F. K.) 90–110 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  81. Dias, N. & Lelkes, Y. The nature of affective polarization: disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Enders, A. M. & Lupton, R. N. Value extremity contributes to affective polarization in the US. Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 9, 857–866 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rogowski, J. C. & Sutherland, J. L. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Polit. Behav. 38, 485–508 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Bougher, L. D. The correlates of discord: identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Polit. Behav. 39, 731–762 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Bullock, J. G. Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 496–515 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Lelkes, Y. Affective polarization and ideological sorting: a reciprocal, albeit weak, relationship. Forum 16, 67–79 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Brewer, M. B. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86, 307 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Tajfel, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33, 1–39 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. in Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds Worchel, S. & Austin, W. A.) 7–24 (Nelson-Hall, 1986).

  91. Mason, L. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (Univ. Chicago Press, 2018).

  92. Van Bavel, J. J. & Packer, D. The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony (Little Brown Spark, 2021).

  93. Kinder, D. R. & Kam, C. D. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion (Univ. Chicago Press, 2010).

  94. Van Bavel, J. J. & Pereira, A. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 213–224 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Kruglanski, A. W. Lay Epistemics And Human Knowledge: Cognitive And Motivational Basis (Plenum, 1989).

  97. Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480–498 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Dunning, D. A newer look: motivated social cognition and the schematic representation of social concepts. Psychol. Inq. 10, 1–11 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Jost, J. T., Hennes, E. P. & Lavine, H. in The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (ed. Carlston, D. E.) 851–875 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).

  100. Jost, J. T. Resistance to change: a social psychological perspective. Soc. Res. 82, 607–636 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Jost, J. T. A Theory of System Justification (Harvard Univ. Press, 2020).

  102. Lodge, M. & Taber, C. S. The Rationalizing Voter (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  103. Baron, J. & Jost, J. T. False equivalence: are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 292–303 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Rollwage, M., Zmigrod, L., de-Wit, L., Dolan, R. J. & Fleming, S. M. What underlies political polarization? A manifesto for computational political psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 820–822 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Rigoli, F. Masters of suspicion: a Bayesian decision model of motivated political reasoning. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 51, 350–370 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Zmigrod, L. The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 34–39 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Jost, J. T. Left And Right: The Psychological Significance Of A Political Distinction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021).

  108. Abelson, R. P. et al. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook (Rand McNally, 1968).

  109. Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (eds) Cognitive Consistency: A Fundamental Principle in Social Cognition (Guilford, 2012).

  110. Noel, H. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  111. Mercier, H. in Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena In Thinking, Judgment And Memory (ed. Pohl, R. F.) 99–114 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2017).

  112. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Does “putting on your thinking cap” reduce myside bias in evaluation of scientific evidence? Think. Reason. 25, 477–505 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Stanovich, K. E. The Bias That Divides Us: The Science And Politics Of Myside Thinking (MIT Press, 2021).

  114. Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37, 2098–2109 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Ditto, P. H. et al. At least bias is bipartisan: a meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14, 273–291 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Prior, M., Sood, G. & Khanna, K. You cannot be serious: the impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 10, 489–518 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Druckman, J. N. & McGrath, M. C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 111–119 (2019). This work highlights the difficulty of distinguishing partisan motivated reasoning from accuracy-driven reasoning, noting that most studies assume but do not show that motivated reasoning exacerbates issue polarization.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 1497–1515 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 81–87 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Schwalbe, M. C., Cohen, G. L. & Ross, L. D. The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 21218–21229 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. & Ross, L. The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 369–381 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Blatz, C. W. & 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. Pers. Sci. 9, 521–529 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Greenwald, A. G. The totalitarian ego: fabrication and revision of personal history. Am. Psychol. 35, 603–618 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Vraga, E. K. How party affiliation conditions the experience of dissonance and explains polarization and selective exposure. Soc. Sci. Q. 96, 487–502 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. in Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology 3–24 (American Psychological Association, 2019).

  126. Stanley, M. L., Henne, P., Yang, B. W. & De Brigard, F. Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Polit. Behav. 42, 891–913 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Bail, C. A. et al. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9216–9221 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Effron, D. A. It could have been true: how counterfactual thoughts reduce condemnation of falsehoods and increase political polarization. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 729–745 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J. & Steele, C. M. When beliefs yield to evidence: reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1151–1164 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Stone, J., Whitehead, J., Schmader, T. & Focella, E. Thanks for asking: self-affirming questions reduce backlash when stigmatized targets confront prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 589–598 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Huber, M., Van Boven, L., Park, B. & Pizzi, W. T. Seeing red: anger increases how much Republican identification predicts partisan attitudes and perceived polarization. PLoS ONE 10, e0139193 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Fernbach, P. M. & Boven, L. V. False polarization: cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 43, 1–6 (2022). This essay addresses how false polarization — where partisans hold false beliefs about the other side — can lead to actual polarization owing to categorical thinking, oversimplification and emotional amplification.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Howell, J. L., Gaither, S. E. & Ratliff, K. A. Caught in the middle: defensive responses to IAT feedback among whites, blacks, and biracial black/whites. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 6, 373–381 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Vitriol, J. & Moskowitz, G. B. Reducing defensive responding to implicit bias feedback: on the role of perceived moral threat and efficacy to change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 96, 104165 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Mellers, B., Tetlock, P. & Arkes, H. R. Forecasting tournaments, epistemic humility and attitude depolarization. Cognition 188, 19–26 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Porter, T. & Schumann, K. Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self Identity 17, 139–162 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Bowes, S. M., Blanchard, M. C., Costello, T. H., Abramowitz, A. I. & Lilienfeld, S. O. Intellectual humility and between-party animus: implications for affective polarization in two community samples. J. Res. Pers. 88, 103992 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J. & Newman, B. Intellectual humility in the sociopolitical domain. Self Identity 19, 989–1016 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Kafati, G. Group identity and intergroup relations: the common in-group identity model. Adv. Group. Process. 17, 1–35 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Ashokkumar, A., Galaif, M. & Swann, W. B. Jr Tribalism can corrupt: why people denounce or protect immoral group members. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 85, 103874 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36, 235–262 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Leeper, T. J. & Slothuus, R. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Polit. Psychol. 35, 129–156 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Connors, E. C. The social dimension of political values. Polit. Behav. 42, 961–982 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Merkley, E. & Stecula, D. A. Party cues in the news: democratic elites, Republican backlash, and the dynamics of climate skepticism. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1439–1456 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Ashokkumar, A. et al. Censoring political opposition online: who does it and why. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 91, 104031 (2020). This study finds that supporters of a political cause (such as abortion restriction or gun control) recommend deleting ideologically incongruent messages and banning sources of ideologically incongruent messages, even when messages are inoffensive.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Van Boven, L., Judd, C. M. & Sherman, D. K. Political polarization projection: social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 84 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J. & Sherman, D. K. Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 492–507 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Westwood, S. J. & Peterson, E. The inseparability of race and partisanship in the United States. Political Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09648-9 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Eibach, R. Ideological polarization and social psychology. Oxford Res. Encyc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.240 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J. R. & Judd, C. M. Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 145–158 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Levendusky, M. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80, 378–391 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M. & Ryan, J. B. (Mis-) estimating affective polarization. J. Polit. 84, 1106–1117 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N. & Willer, R. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2116851119 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Stern, C. & Crawford, J. T. Ideological conflict and prejudice: an adversarial collaboration examining correlates and ideological (a)symmetries. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 12, 42–53 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Enders, A. M. & Armaly, M. T. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit. Behav. 41, 815–839 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Wolf, L. J., Weinstein, N. & Maio, G. R. Anti-immigrant prejudice: understanding the roles of (perceived) values and value dissimilarity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 925–953 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Cialdini, R. B., Levy, A., Herman, C. P. & Evenbeck, S. Attitudinal politics: the strategy of moderation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 25, 100–108 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Levendusky, M. & Malhotra, N. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Polit. Commun. 33, 283–301 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Robison, J. & Mullinix, K. J. Elite polarization and public opinion: how polarization is communicated and its effects. Polit. Commun. 33, 261–282 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Morisi, D., Jost, J. T. & Singh, V. An asymmetrical “president-in-power” effect. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 614–620 (2019). This research shows that US conservatives’ trust in government, more than liberals’, is shaped substantially by who holds the presidency — they trust the government much more when the president shares their ideology.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Morisi, D., Jost, J. T., Panagopoulos, C., & Valtonen, J. Is there an ideological asymmetry in the incumbency effect? Evidence from US Congressional elections. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211046830 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Sidanius, J. & Liu, J. H. The Gulf War and the Rodney King beating: implications of the general conservatism and social dominance perspectives. J. Soc. Psychol. 132, 685–700 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Duckitt, J. A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 41–113 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Van Assche, J., Dhont, K. & Pettigrew, T. F. The social-psychological bases of far-right support in Europe and the United States. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. 29, 385–401 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Womick, J., Rothmund, T., Azevedo, F., King, L. A. & Jost, J. T. Group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression predict support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10, 643–652 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Forscher, P. S. & Kteily, N. S. A psychological profile of the alt-right. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 90–116 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Nilsson, A. & Jost, J. T. The authoritarian-conservatism nexus. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 148–154 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Knuckey, J. & Hassan, K. Authoritarianism and support for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Soc. Sci. J. 59, 47–60 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Crowson, H. M. & Brandes, J. A. Differentiating between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton voters using facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientation: a brief report. Psychol. Rep. 120, 364–373 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Grossmann, M. & Thaler, D. Mass–elite divides in aversion to social change and support for Donald Trump. Am. Polit. Res. 46, 753–784 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Becker, J. C. Ideology and the promotion of social change. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 6–11 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Halliez, A. A. & Thornton, J. R. Examining trends in ideological identification: 1972–2016. Am. Polit. Res. 49, 259–268 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Nosek, B., Banaji, M. R., & Jost, J. T. in Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification (eds Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C. & Thorisdottir, H.) 480–506 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  175. Brooks, C. & Manza, J. A broken public? Americans’ responses to the great recession. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78, 727–748 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Luttig, M. The structure of inequality and Americans’ attitudes toward redistribution. Public. Opin. Q. 77, 811–821 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Bartels, L. M. Unequal Democracy 2nd edn (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).

  178. Trump, K. S. Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 929–952 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T. & Sterling, J. Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined. J. Soc. Issues 75, 49–88 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Hing, L. S. S., Wilson, A. E., Gourevitch, P., English, J. & Sin, P. Failure to respond to rising income inequality: processes that legitimize growing disparities. Daedalus 148, 105–135 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Mijs, J. J. The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socioecon. Rev. 19, 7–35 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Jacquet, J., Dietrich, M. & Jost, J. T. The ideological divide and climate change opinion: “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. Front. Psychol. 5, 1458 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. et al. Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 322–328 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A. & Jost, J. T. Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: the case of anthropogenic climate change. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 755–771 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Azevedo, F. & Jost, J. T. The ideological basis of anti-scientific attitudes: effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification. Group Process. Interg. Relat. 24, 518–549 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Ang, Z., Reeves, A., Rogowski, J. C. & Vishwanath, A. Partisanship, economic assessments, and presidential accountability. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12659 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Morgeson, F. V. III, Sharma, P. N., Sharma, U. & Hult, G. T. M. Partisan bias and citizen satisfaction, confidence, and trust in the US Federal Government. Public Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1945667 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. McGuire, W. J. Constructing Social Psychology: Creative And Critical Processes (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

  189. Lasswell, H. D. in The Communication of Ideas (ed. Bryson, L.) (Harper and Brothers, 1948).

  190. Druckman, J. N. A framework for the study of persuasion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 25, 65–88 (2022). This review provides a framework for drawing generalization from research on persuasion, focusing on the actors (speakers and receivers), treatments (topics, content and media), outcomes (attitudes, behaviours, emotions and identities) and settings (competition, space, time, process and culture).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Zaller, J. R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).

  192. Achen, C. H. & Bartels, L. M. Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).

  193. Layman, G. C. & Carsey, T. M. Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 786–802 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Lindaman, K. & Haider-Markel, D. P. Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture wars. Polit. Res. Q. 55, 91–110 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Egan, P. J. & Mullin, M. Climate change: US public opinion. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 20, 209–227 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Carmines, E. G. & Woods, J. The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Polit. Behav. 24, 361–377 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Flores, A. et al. Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2117543119 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  198. Petty, R., Ostrom, T., & Brock, T. (eds) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (Psychology Press, 2014).

  199. Huddy, L. & Yair, O. Reducing affective polarization: warm group relations or policy compromise? Polit. Psychol. 42, 291–309 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295–298 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Rolfe, M. Voter Turnout: A Social Theory of Political Participation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  202. Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R. & Hatemi, P. K. The dating preferences of liberals and conservatives. Polit. Behav. 35, 519–538 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  203. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M. & Osborn, T. Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: the political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Polit. Psychol. 25, 65–95 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Lee, B. & Bearman, P. Political isolation in America. Netw. Sci. 8, 333–355 (2020). The study documents trends in the composition of political discussion networks and shows that American’s core discussion networks shrink during heated political times.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  205. Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Ideological segregation online and offline. Q. J. Econ. 126, 1799–1839 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  206. Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 1130–1132 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. & Bonneau, R. Tweeting from left to right: is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 26, 1531–1542 (2015). This study estimates ideological preferences of 3.8 million Twitter users in the USA and finds that ideological segregation in social media is less extreme than previously thought. Moreover, liberals are more likely than conservatives to engage in cross-ideological dissemination of information online.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. Barberá, P. in Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field (eds Persily, N. & Tucker, J.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).

  209. Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. S. Voter migration and the geographic sorting of the American electorate. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 856–870 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. Mummolo, J. & Nall, C. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Polit. 79, 45–59 (2017). Evidence from survey experiments suggests that partisans are not migrating to more politically distinct communities. By prioritizing common concerns when deciding where to live, Americans forgo the opportunity to move to more politically congenial communities.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Brown, J. R. & Enos, R. D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 998–1008 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. Bishop, B. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009).

  213. Rodden, J. Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Divide (Basic Books, 2019).

  214. DellaPosta, D., Shi, Y. & Macy, M. Why do liberals drink lattes? Am. J. Sociol. 120, 1473–1511 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  215. Hetherington, M. & Weiler, J. Prius Or Pickup? How The Answers To Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide (Houghton Mifflin, 2018).

  216. Mutz, D. C. & Rao, J. S. The real reason liberals drink lattes. PS Polit. Sci. Politics 51, 762–767 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  217. Rogers, N. & Jost, J. T. Liberals as cultural omnivores. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 7, 255–265 (2022). This analysis reveals that self-identified liberalism was positively associated with the total number of cultural exposures across a wide range of domains. The ideological asymmetry in cultural sorting was statistically mediated by individual differences in openness to new experiences.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Eastwick, P. W., Richeson, J. A., Son, D. & Finkel, E. J. Is love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic desire. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 1258–1268 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  219. Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. Political homophily in social relationships. J. Polit. 79, 269–283 (2017). Using an online experiment and observational data from an online dating community, this article shows that USA residents are more inclined to date individuals who have similar (versus dissimilar) political characteristics to themselves.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  220. McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N. & Levendusky, M. The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62, 5–18 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Shafranek, R. M. Political considerations in nonpolitical decisions. Polit. Behav. 43, 271–300 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. Baldassarri, D. & Goldberg, A. Neither ideologues nor agnostics: alternative voters’ belief system in an age of partisan politics. Am. J. Sociol. 120, 45–95 (2014). This network analysis of political belief systems of USA voters finds that a third of the electorate is composed of individuals who are morally conservative but economically liberal, or vice versa. These conflicting political views are linked to sociodemographic profiles.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  223. Druckman, J. N. & Nelson, K. R. Framing and deliberation: how citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47, 729–745 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. Klar, S. Partisanship in a social setting. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 687–704 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  225. Hart, P. S., Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions: influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Sci. Commun. 37, 506–532 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. Hutchens, M. J., Hmielowski, J. D. & Beam, M. A. Reinforcing spirals of political discussion and affective polarization. Commun. Monogr. 86, 357–376 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Rossiter, E. The consequences of interparty conversation on outparty affect and stereotypes. Preprint at http://erossiter.com/files/conversations.pdf (2020).

  228. Boutyline, A. & Willer, R. The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Polit. Psychol. 38, 551–569 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  229. Xu, X., Mar, R. A. & Peterson, J. B. Does cultural exposure partially explain the association between personality and political orientation? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39, 1497–1517 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. Matz, S. C. Personal echo chambers: openness-to-experience is linked to higher levels of psychological interest diversity in large-scale behavioral data. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121, 1284–1300 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  231. Lee, S., Rojas, H. & Yamamoto, M. Social media, messaging apps, and affective polarization in the United States and Japan. Mass. Commun. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1953534 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. Gerber, A., Huber, G., Doherty, D. & Dowling, C. Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 56, 849–874 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  233. Cowan, S. K. & Baldassarri, D. “It could turn ugly”: selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks. Soc. Netw. 52, 1–17 (2018). Using a novel set of survey questions, this research illustrates the mechanism of selective disclosure: the tendency to withhold political attitudes from those with whom one disagrees in an attempt to avoid conflict.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  234. Baldassarri, D. & Bearman, P. Dynamics of political polarization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72, 784–811 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  235. Goel, S., Mason, W. & Watts, D. J. Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 611–621 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  236. Bar-Tal, D. Self-censorship as a socio-political-psychological phenomenon: conception and research. Polit. Psychol. 38 (suppl. 1), 37–65 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  237. Groenendyk, E. & Krupnikov, Y. What motivates reasoning? A theory of goal-dependent political evaluation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 65, 180–196 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  238. Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. & Feinberg, M. Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 223–228 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  239. Prior, M. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality In Political Involvement And Polarizes Elections (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  240. Arceneaux, K. & Johnson, M. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice (Univ. Chicago Press, 2013).

  241. Prior, M. Media and political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 101–127 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  242. Prior, M. Hooked: How Politics Captures People’s Interest (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  243. Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. Independent Politics: How American Disdain For Parties Leads To Political Inaction (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).

  244. Krupnikov, Y. & Ryan J. B. The Other Divide: Polarization And Disengagement In American Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  245. DellaVigna, S. & Kaplan, E. The Fox News effect: media bias and voting. Q. J. Econ. 120, 1187–1234 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  246. Martin, G. J. & Yurukoglu, A. Bias in cable news: persuasion and polarization. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 2565–2599 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  247. Hopkins, D. J. & Ladd, J. M. The consequences of broader media choice: evidence from the expansion of Fox News. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 9, 115–135 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  248. Levendusky, M. How Partisan Media Polarize America (Univ. Chicago Press, 2013).

  249. Druckman, J. N., Gubitz, S. R., Levendusky, M. S. & Lloyd, A. How incivility on partisan media (de-)polarizes the electorate. J. Polit. 81, 291–295 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  250. Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Osborne, D. & Badaan, V. Missing in (collective) action: ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of protest behavior. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 99–108 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  251. Osborne, D., Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Badaan, V. & Sibley, C. G. Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 244–269 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  252. Mikołajczak, G., Becker, J. C. & Iyer, A. Women who challenge or defend the status quo: ingroup identities as predictors of progressive and reactionary collective action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2842 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  253. Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S. & McLain, A. No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via inter-personal discussions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62, 99–112 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  254. Jost, J. T. et al. How social media facilitates political protest: information, motivation, and social networks. Polit. Psychol. 39 (suppl. 1), 58–118 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  255. Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 211–236 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  256. Spohr, D. Fake news and ideological polarization: filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Bus. Inf. Rev. 34, 150–160 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  257. Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C. & Yarchi, M. Interpretative polarization across platforms: how political disagreement develops over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Soc. Media Soc. 6, 2056305120944393 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  258. Bail, C. Breaking The Social Media Prism: How To Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021).

  259. Levy, R. E. Social media, news consumption, and polarization: evidence from a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 111, 831–870 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  260. Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J. & van der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118 (2021). This study of social media platforms finds that messages expressing negative emotions (such as anger, moral outrage and mockery) about the ideological out-group were especially likely to be shared on Facebook and Twitter, compared to other types of message.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  261. Van Bavel, J. J., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C. & Sternisko, A. How social media shapes polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 913–916 (2021). This review suggests that social media platforms exacerbate political polarization through mechanisms of partisan selection, message content, platform design and computerized algorithms.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  262. Yarchi, M., Baden, C. & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Polit. Commun. 38, 98–139 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  263. Kim, T. Violent political rhetoric on Twitter. Political Sci. Res. Methods. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.12 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  264. Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Sci. 1, 6 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  265. Lelkes, Y., Sood, G. & Iyengar, S. The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 61, 5–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  266. Hargittai, E., Gallo, J. & Kane, M. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 134, 67–86 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  267. Dubois, E. & Blank, G. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21, 729–745 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  268. Guess, A., Nyhan, B., Lyons, B. & Reifler, J. Avoiding the Echo Chamber About Echo Chambers (Knight Foundation, 2018).

  269. Brady, W. J., Wills, J., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7313–7318 (2017). This study shows that moral-emotional language in political messages diffuse at high rates within (but not between) ideological groups on social media, showing how social media can affect polarization through immersion in an ideological network.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  270. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Burkart, D., Jost, J. T. & Van Bavel, J. J. An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 1802–1813 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  271. Allcott, H. et al. Polarization and public health: partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. J. Public Econ. 191, 104254 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  272. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Greater internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10612–10617 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  273. Druckman, J. N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit. Behav. 23, 225–256 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  274. Busby, E. C., Flynn, D. J., & Druckman, J. N. in Doing News Framing Analysis II (ed. D’Angelo, P.) (Routledge, 2018).

  275. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass. 13, e12501 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  276. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. & Goldsmith, R. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of ‘system-sanctioned change’. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 326–338 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  277. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24, 56–62 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  278. Campbell, T. H. & Kay, A. C. Solution aversion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 809–824 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  279. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H. & Seiden, J. Red, white, and blue enough to be green. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65, 7–19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  280. Klar, S. The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. J. Polit. 75, 1108–1124 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  281. Levendusky, M. Americans, not partisans. J. Polit. 80, 59–70 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  282. Talaifar, S. & Swann, W. B., Jr. Deep alignment with country shrinks the moral gap between conservatives and liberals. Polit. Psychol. 40, 657–675 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  283. Boxell, L., Conway, J., Druckman, J. N. & Gentzkow, M. Affective polarization did not increase during the COVID-19 pandemic. Q. J. Polit. Sci. Forthcoming https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3785328 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  284. Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T. & Rothmund, T. “Making America great again”: system justification in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Transl. Issues Psychol. Sci. 3, 231–240 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  285. Billig, M. Banal Nationalism (Sage, 1995).

  286. Bonikowski, B., Feinstein, Y. & Bock, S. The partisan sorting of “America”: How nationalist cleavages shaped the 2016 US Presidential election. Am. J. Sociol. 127, 492–561 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  287. van der Toorn, J., Nail, P., Liviatan, I. & Jost, J. T. My country, right or wrong: does activating system justification motivation eliminate the liberal–conservative gap in patriotism? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 54, 50–60 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  288. Kobayashi, T. & Katagiri, A. The “rally around the flag” effect in territorial disputes: experimental evidence from Japan–China relations. J. East Asian Stud. 18, 299–319 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  289. Porat, R., Tamir, M., Wohl, M. J., Gur, T. & Halperin, E. Motivated emotion and the rally around the flag effect: liberals are motivated to feel collective angst (like conservatives) when faced with existential threat. Cogn. Emot. 33, 480–491 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  290. Lau, R. R., Anderson, D. J., Ditono, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S. & Redlawsk, D. P. Effect of media environment diversity and advertising tone on information search, selective exposure, and affective polarization. Polit. Behav. 39, 231–255 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  291. Gooch, A. Ripping yarn: experiments on storytelling by partisan elites. Polit. Commun. 35, 220–238 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  292. Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C. & Gray, K. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2008389118 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  293. Broockman, D. E. & Kalla, J. L. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  294. Martinez, J. E., Feldman, L. A., Feldman, M. J. & Cikara, M. Narratives shape cognitive representations of immigrants and immigration-policy preferences. Psychol. Sci. 32, 135–152 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  295. Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. Which narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Evidence from field and survey experiments supporting the efficacy of perspective-getting. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12657 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  296. Kalla, J. L. & Broockman, D. E. Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: evidence from three field experiments. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 410–425 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  297. Carpenter, C. J. Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Ann. Int. Comun. Assoc. 43, 1–23 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  298. Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Spring, V., Harris, E. & Duke, A. Speaking my truth: why personal experiences can bridge divides but mislead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100280118 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  299. Mullinix, K. J. Partisanship and preference formation: competing motivations, elite polarization, and issue importance. Polit. Behav. 38, 383–411 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  300. Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Bayesian or biased? Analytic thinking and political belief updating. Cognition 204, 104375 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  301. Molden, D. C., Bayes, R. & Druckman, J. N. A motivational systems approach to investigating opinions on climate change. Think. Reason. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1982003 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  302. Lelkes, Y. & Westwood, S. J. The limits of partisan prejudice. J. Polit. 79, 485–501 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  303. Kingzette, J. et al. How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opin. Q. 85, 663–677 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  304. Webber, D., Kruglanski, A., Molinario, E. & Jasko, K. Ideologies that justify political violence. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 107–111 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  305. Hartman, R. et al. Interventions to reduce political animosity: a systematic review. Trends Cogn. Sci. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ha2tf (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  306. Lijphart, A. in Solutions to Political Polarization in America (ed. Persily, N.) 73–82 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  307. Ravndal, J. A. Explaining right-wing terrorism and violence in Western Europe: grievances, opportunities and polarisation. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57, 845–866 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  308. Baker, J. O. & Edmonds, A. E. Immigration, presidential politics, and partisan polarization among the American public, 1992–2018. Sociol. Spectr. 41, 287–303 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  309. Harteveld, E., Mendoza, P. & Rooduijn, M. Affective polarization and the populist radical right: creating the hating? Gov. Oppos. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.31 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  310. Bonikowski, B. Ethno-nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective resentment. Br. J. Sociol. 68, S181–S213 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  311. Hart, R. P. Donald Trump and the return of the paranoid style. Pres. Stud. Q. 50, 348–365 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  312. Isom, D. A., Mikell, T. C. & Boehme, H. M. White America, threat to the status quo, and affiliation with the alt-right: a qualitative approach. Sociol. Spect. 41, 213–228 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  313. van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F. & Jost, J. T. The paranoid style in American politics revisited: an ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Polit. Psychol. 42, 23–51 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  314. Franco, A. B. & Pound, N. The foundations of Bolsonaro’s support: exploring the psychological underpinnings of political polarization in Brazil. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2599 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  315. Imhoff, R. et al. Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 392–403 (2022). This study found that, across 26 countries, rightists scored consistently higher than leftists on a generalized conspiracy mentality scale in 11 countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland). In three countries (Hungary, Romania and the UK), there were conflicting results; there was only one country (Spain) where leftists were more conspiracy-minded than rightists.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  316. Mitchell, A., Jurkowitz, M., Oliphant, J. B. & Shearer, E. Americans who mainly get their news on social media are less engaged, less knowledgeable. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/ (2020).

  317. Levendusky, M. & Stecula, D. We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  318. Iyengar, S. & Hahn, K. S. Red media, blue media: evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J. Commun. 59, 19–39 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  319. Glinitzer, K., Gummer & Wagner, M. Learning facts about migration: politically motivated learning of polarizing information about refugees. Polit. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12734 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  320. Ma, Y., Dixon, G. & Hmielowski, J. Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: the role of prior views and political identification. Environ. Commun. 13, 71–86 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  321. Goya-Tocchetto, D., Kay, A. C., Vuletich, H., Vonasch, A. & Payne, K. The partisan trade-off bias: when political polarization meets policy trade-offs. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 98, 104231 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  322. Cialdini, R. B. & Jacobson, R. P. Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42, 1–8 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  323. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62, 49–58 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  324. Bayes, R., Druckman, J., Goods, A. & Molden, D. C. When and how different motives can drive motivated political reasoning. Polit. Psychol. 41, 1031–1052 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  325. Baxter-King, R., Brown, J. R., Enos, R. D., Naeim, A. & Vavreck, L. How local partisan context conditions prosocial behaviors: mask wearing during COVID-19. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2116311119 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  326. Jost, J. T., van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C. & Hardin, C. D. Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 23, 77–83 (2018). From the perspective of system justification theory, this article reviews evidence of ideological asymmetry such that conservatives prioritize conformity, possess a stronger desire for a shared reality with those who share their ideology, and maintain more homogeneous networks, compared to liberals.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  327. Perez-Truglia, R. & Cruces, G. Partisan interactions: evidence from a field experiment in the United States. J. Polit. Econ. 125, 1208–1243 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  328. Perez-Truglia, R. Political conformity: event-study evidence from the United States. Rev. Econ. Stat. 100, 14–28 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  329. Martin, G. J. & Webster, S. W. Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 8, 215–231 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  330. Johnston, R., Manley, D., Jones, K. & Rohla, R. The geographical polarization of the American electorate: a country of increasing electoral landslides? GeoJournal. 85, 187–204 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  331. Brown, J. R., Enos, R. D., Feigenbaum, J. & Mazumder, S. Childhood cross-ethnic exposure predicts political behavior seven decades later: evidence from linked administrative data. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe8432 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  332. Levendusky, M. Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Overcome the Partisan Divide (Univ. Chicago Press, 2023).

  333. Kriesi, H. et al. Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 45, 921–956 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  334. Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. J. Eur. Public Policy 25, 109–135 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  335. Sorace, M. & Hobolt, S. B. A tale of two peoples: motivated reasoning in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Polit. Sci. Res. Meth. 9, 675–692 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  336. Hobolt, S. B., Leeper, T. J. & Tilley, J. Divided by the vote: affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1476–1493 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  337. Vössing, K. Shaping public opinion about regional integration: the rhetoric of justification and party cues. Polit. Stud. 69, 492–513 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  338. Bosco, A. & Verney, S. Polarization in southern Europe: elites, party conflicts and negative partisanship. South. Eur. Soc. Politics 25, 257–284 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  339. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Rev. Econ. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01160 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  340. Draca, M. & Schwarz, C. How polarized are citizens? Measuring ideology from the ground-up. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3154431 (2021).

  341. Garcia-Rada, X. & Norton, M. I. Putting within-country political differences in (global) perspective. PLoS ONE 15, e0231794 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  342. Thomsen, D. M. Opting Out Of Congress: Partisan Polarization And The Decline Of Moderate Candidates (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  343. Pierson, P. & Schickler, E. Madison’s constitution under stress: a developmental analysis of political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 23, 37–58 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  344. Berman, C. When revolutionary coalitions break down: polarization, protest, and the Tunisian political crisis of August 2013. Middle East Law Gov. 11, 136–179 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  345. Grzymała-Busse, A. The failure of Europe’s mainstream parties. J. Democr. 30, 35–47 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank E. Finkel and A. Ashokkumar for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    John T. Jost

  2. Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Delia S. Baldassarri

  3. Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    James N. Druckman

Authors
  1. John T. Jost
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Delia S. Baldassarri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James N. Druckman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John T. Jost.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Jeff Lees, Konstantin Vossing and Leor Zmigrod for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jost, J.T., Baldassarri, D.S. & Druckman, J.N. Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 560–576 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing