Affective Polarization Did Not Increase During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Boxell, Levi; Conway, Jacob; Druckman, James N.; Gentzkow, Matthew

doi:10.3386/w28036

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We present the pre-specified pooled results in Appendix D, where the difference-in-difference estimate for the explicit measure is no longer statistically significant at conventional levels (p = 0.141) and the difference-in-difference estimate for the implicit measure is weakly statistically significant (p = 0.069).12 ThoughBoxell et al (2020) find that affective polarization actually decreased around the onset of the pandemic before returning to pre-pandemic levels after the George Floyd protests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Couples Therapy for a Divided America: Assessing the Effects of Reciprocal Group Reflection on Partisan Polarization

Baron

Blair²,

Choi³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overcoming America’s deep partisan polarization poses a unique challenge: Americans must be able to disagree on policy while nonetheless agreeing on more fundamental democratic principles. We study one model of depolarization—reciprocal group reflection—inspired by marital counseling and implemented by a non-governmental organization, “Braver Angels.” We randomly assigned undergraduate students at four universities either to participate in a Braver Angels workshop or simply to complete three rounds of surveys. The workshops significantly reduced polarization according to explicit and implicit measures. They also increased participants’ willingness to donate to programs aimed at depolarizing political conversations. These effects are consistent across partisan groups, though some dissipate over time. Using qualitative data collected during the workshops, we generate a new theory of depolarization that combines both informational and emotional components such that citizens, moved to empathize with an outgroup, become more likely to internalize new information about outgroup members.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Couples Therapy for a Divided America: Assessing the Effects of Reciprocal Group Reflection on Partisan Polarization

Baron

Blair²,

Choi³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps the unprecedented crisis of COVID-19 weakened the link between discussion networks and out-party animus. While our data cannot directly address this concern, there is little evidence that affective polarization levels have changed consistently during the pandemic (Boxell et al, 2020a), while various studies document partisan polarization in pandemic response (Pennycook et al, 2020). Polarized politics is business as usual during the pandemic, so we have little grounds to anticipate a weakened link between discussion and polarization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Does Talking to the Other Side Reduce Inter-party Hostility? Evidence from Three Studies

Amsalem

Merkley

Loewen

2021

Political Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to recent scholarship, citizens in various Western democracies show a growing sense of dislike and distrust toward members of opposing political parties. While political communication processes have been shown to influence inter-party hostility, the literature has so far focused mainly on mass-mediated communication. We argue here that affective polarization might also be determined by interpersonal political communication. Specifically, we hypothesize that "heterogeneous" political discussions-those transcending partisan and ideological boundaries-are associated with decreased hostility toward the other side. We test this hypothesis with three studies conducted in Canada: A cross-sectional survey (N = 3,596), a twowave panel (N = 3,408), and an instrumental variable analysis (N = 2,005). We find that heterogeneous discussion indeed is associated with reduced polarization, a conclusion that holds across indicators of affect, obtains for both face-to-face and online discussions, and is consistent across studies. Having a heterogeneous (compared to homogeneous) discussion network predicts substantial decreases of up to 0.76, and no less than 0.09, standard deviations in out-party hostility. These findings inform scholarly debates about the antecedents of affective polarization and are consistent with the claim that cross-cutting political discussion can benefit democracy.

show abstract

“…In addition, expressed partisan hostilities are sometimes "cheerleading" [16] that does not translate into behaviours when there are stakes such as health risks. Finally, research show that priming Americans about COVID reduces affective polarization [17]. Whether these endorsements have any effects on trust and behaviours is thus an empirical question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Endorsements by Scientific Organizations Reduce Trust in Scientific Expertise During COVID-19

Zhang

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-profile political endorsements by scientific organizations and publications have been common in recent years, which raises concerns about political backlash against the endorsing organization in particular and scientific expertise in general. In a pre-registered large-sample online controlled experiment, I randomly assign subjects to receive information about Nature’s endorsement of Joe Biden for the 2020 U.S. presidential election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Seeing the endorsement message leads to large reductions in self-reported trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust translates into lower demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy and emerging COVID variants when offered. The endorsement also reduces Trump supporters’ stated trust in scientists in general, suggesting “reputational externalities” on the scientific community. Treatment effect estimates for Biden supporters are positive but small and often statistically insignificant across outcomes. Finally, I find little evidence that the endorsement is successful at changing subjects’ views about Biden and Trump. These results show political endorsement by scientific organizations can undermine public confidence in the endorsing organization and in the scientific community.

show abstract

Affective Polarization Did Not Increase During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

Couples Therapy for a Divided America: Assessing the Effects of Reciprocal Group Reflection on Partisan Polarization

Couples Therapy for a Divided America: Assessing the Effects of Reciprocal Group Reflection on Partisan Polarization

Does Talking to the Other Side Reduce Inter-party Hostility? Evidence from Three Studies

Political Endorsements by Scientific Organizations Reduce Trust in Scientific Expertise During COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About