IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v708y2023i1p46-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Psychology of Left-Right Political Polarization; and an Experimental Intervention for Curbing Partisan Animosity and Support for Antidemocratic Violence

Author

Listed:
  • John T. Jost
  • Daniela Goya-Tocchetto
  • Aaron C. Kay

Abstract

Healthy democratic polities feature competing visions of a good society. They also require tolerance, trust, and cooperation to avoid toxic polarization that puts democracy itself at risk. In the U.S., liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists differ in many attitudes, values, and personality traits, as well as tendencies to justify the unequal status quo and embrace authoritarian aggression and group-based dominance. Some of these differences imply that conflict between liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists is tantamount to a struggle for and against democratic ideals. However, these political and psychological differences between the left and the right do not necessarily mean that Americans are forever doomed to intergroup hatred and intractable political conflict. Some modest basis for optimism emerges from recent experimental interventions, including one that encourages people to identify with and justify the system of liberal democracy in the U.S.

Suggested Citation

  • John T. Jost & Daniela Goya-Tocchetto & Aaron C. Kay, 2023. "The Psychology of Left-Right Political Polarization; and an Experimental Intervention for Curbing Partisan Animosity and Support for Antidemocratic Violence," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 46-63, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:46-63
    DOI: 10.1177/00027162241227778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162241227778
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00027162241227778?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    2. Jeffrey Lees & Mina Cikara, 2020. "Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(3), pages 279-286, March.
    3. Jan G. Voelkel & James Chu & Michael N. Stagnaro & Joseph S. Mernyk & Chrystal Redekopp & Sophia L. Pink & James N. Druckman & David G. Rand & Robb Willer, 2023. "Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 55-64, January.
    4. Young, Dannagal G. & Rasheed, Huma & Bleakley, Amy & Langbaum, Jessica B., 2022. "The politics of mask-wearing: Political preferences, reactance, and conflict aversion during COVID," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    5. Nick Rogers & John T. Jost, 2022. "Liberals as Cultural Omnivores," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(3), pages 255-265.
    6. Fischer, Kyle & Chaudhuri, Ananish & Atkinson, Quentin D., 2023. "Dual Evolutionary Foundations of Political Ideology Predict Divergent Responses to COVID-19," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 861-877, July.
    7. Joanna Sterling & John T. Jost & Curtis D. Hardin, 2019. "Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, May.
    8. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, January.
    9. Knight, Kathleen, 2006. "Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(4), pages 619-626, November.
    10. Barber, Michael & Pope, Jeremy C., 2019. "Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 38-54, February.
    11. Enders, Adam M. & Lupton, Robert N., 2021. "Value extremity contributes to affective polarization in the US," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 857-866, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    2. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    3. Sorace, Miriam & Hobolt, Sara, 2020. "A tale of two peoples: motivated reasoning in the aftermath of the Brexit vote," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105106, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Jonathan Knuckey & Myunghee Kim, 2020. "The Politics of White Racial Identity and Vote Choice in the 2018 Midterm Elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1584-1599, July.
    5. Benoit Aubert & Jane Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Thierry Warin, 2021. "La détermination des agendas de discussion par les médias sociaux," CIRANO Project Reports 2021rp-12, CIRANO.
    6. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    7. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    8. Lucia Freira & Marco Sartorio & Cynthia Boruchowicz & Florencia Lopez Boo & Joaquin Navajas, 2021. "The interplay between partisanship, forecasted COVID-19 deaths, and support for preventive policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    10. Adrienne Holz, 2024. "Ideological Consistency and News Sharing as Predictors of Masking Among College Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(12), pages 1-17, December.
    11. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    12. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    13. Jetter, Michael & Molina, Teresa, 2022. "Persuasive agenda-setting: Rodrigo Duterte’s inauguration speech and drugs in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. John M. Carey & Andrew M. Guess & Peter J. Loewen & Eric Merkley & Brendan Nyhan & Joseph B. Phillips & Jason Reifler, 2022. "The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 236-243, February.
    15. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    16. Christian Bjørnskov & Niklas Potrafke, 2012. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom Across Canadian Provinces," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 143-166.
    17. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    18. Richard Bronk & Wade Jacoby, 2020. "The epistemics of populism and the politics of uncertainty," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 152, European Institute, LSE.
    19. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    20. David E. Campbell, 2023. "Social Capital in a Divided America: The Relationship between Economic Bridging and Affective Polarization," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 102-120, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:708:y:2023:i:1:p:46-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.