the current debate over the extent of polarization in the American mass public focuses on the extent to which partisans' policy preferences have moved. Whereas "maximalists" claim that partisans' views on policies have become more extreme over time (Abramowitz 2010), "minimalists" (Fiorina and Abrams 2009) contend that the majority of Americans remain centrist, and that what little centrifugal movement has occurred reflects sorting, i.e., the increased association between partisanship and ideology. We argue in favor of an alternative definition of polarization, based on the classic concept of social distance (Bogardus 1947). using data from a variety of sources, we demonstrate that both republicans and democrats increasingly dislike, even loathe, their opponents. We also find that partisan affect is inconsistently (and perhaps artifactually) founded in policy attitudes. the more plausible account lies in the nature of political campaigns; exposure to messages attacking the out-group reinforces partisans' biased views of their opponents.
We document a large and consequential bias in how Americans perceive the major political parties: people considerably overestimate the share of party-stereotypical groups in the parties. For instance, people think that 32% of Democrats are LGBT (6% in reality) and 38% of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year (2%). Experimental data demonstrate that these misperceptions are genuine and party-speci c, not artifacts of expressive responding, innumeracy, or ignorance of base rates. These misperceptions are widely shared, though bias in out-party perceptions is greater. Using both observational and experimental data, we document the consequences of this perceptual bias. Misperceptions about out-party composition are associated with partisan a ect, beliefs about out-party extremity, and in exible partyline voting. When provided information about the actual composition of the out-party, partisans come to see its supporters as less extreme and feel less socially distant from them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.