How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Democratic Norms

Abstract

Does affective polarization—the tendency to view opposing partisans negatively and co-partisans positively—undermine support for democratic norms? We argue that it does, through two mechanisms. First, in an age of elite polarization, norms have been politicized. This leads affectively polarized partisans to oppose particular constitutional protections when their party is in power but support them when their party is out of power, via a cue-taking mechanism. Second, affective polarization may generate biases that motivate voters to restrict the other party’s rights. Using nationally representative surveys, we find strong support for the cue-taking argument. In 2019, with a Republican administration in power, affectively polarized Republicans opposed constitutional protections while affectively polarized Democrats supported them. The reverse was true in 2012 during a Democratic administration. The findings have important, albeit troubling, implications for American democracy, as affective polarization undermines support for basic democratic principles.

The Radicalization of Brexit Activists

“…Perhaps consistent with the view that “affective polarization” of one's own and an opposition group may have toxic consequences in, for example, leading to erosion of democratic norms and dehumanization of the other group (Moore-Berg et al, 2020 ; Arbatli and Rosenberg, 2021 ; Kingzette et al, 2021 ), those individuals who viewed opposing activists more negatively were found to be more willing to undertake hypothetical extreme pro-group behavior. Whilst this may be unsurprising, it suggests that repertory grid technique could be an effective measure to develop as part of an assessment tool, for example in preventative programmes.…”

Attitudes toward civil liberties and rights among politically charged online groups

“…only one television channel was more trusted by conservatives than leftists in the U.S., with an analogous pattern in Spain(Masip, Suau, & Ruiz-Caballero, 2020)-the country of origin of most of our sample Kingzette et al (2021). offers political data on how affective polarization undermined support for democratic norms between 2012 and 2019 in the U.S.: the politicization of democratic norms led polarized individuals to oppose or reject civil liberties depending on whether or not they perceived to be in power.CIVIL LIBERTIES AT THE CROSSROADS 18 Many scholars have suggested this explanation for the upsurge of right-wing populism in Western countries, particularly in relation to Donald Trump's rise to power and European far-right parties such as Rassemblement National (France), VOX (Spain), Alternative für Deutschland (Germany), and Partij voor de Vrijheid (the Netherlands).…”

“…Political positions are becoming increasingly partisan and close-minded in Western countries, with people describing their political systems in terms of "Us" versus "Them", and political parties more internally homogeneous and distant from each other (Twenge, Honeycutt, Prislin, & Sherman, 2016;McCoy, Rahman, & Somer, 2018). This article aids understanding of endorsement of civil liberties and rights among individuals engaged in leftist and rightist online groups, as previous results suggest that political identification and affective polarization makes citizens prone to prefer their electoral choices over democratic principles, thus justifying anti-democratic attitudes within their affinity group (Graham & Svolik, 2020;Kingzette, Druckman, Klar, Krupnikov, Levendusky, & Barry Ryan, 2021).…”

Interventions to Reduce Partisan Animosity

“…Partisan animosity in America [1][2][3][4] undermines our ability to address diverse policy issues such as pandemics [5,6], income inequality [7], and education [8], and may also reduce support for democracy [9] and the peaceful transfer of power [10]. Whereas there are several reviews of the causes and consequences of partisan animosity [1,[11][12][13], there are no reviews of the many interventions [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] to reduce it.…”

“…Although some emerging evidence questions the causal relationship between the media and political animosity [66,145], interventions could nonetheless improve the design of social media to create a depolarizing experience for users. Political elites (e.g., politicians and media figures) bear some blame for hostile public discourse, in part because their aggressive and dehumanizing behavior serves as a model for others [9,146,147].…”