in

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity


  • 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
     

  • Abramowitz, A. & Saunders, K. Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. Forum 3, 1–22 (2005).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Campbell, J. E. Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bavel, J. J. V. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460–471 (2020).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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 (2020).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Duca, J. V. & Saving, J. L. Income inequality and political polarization: time series evidence over nine decades. Rev. Income Wealth 62, 445–466 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Houston, D. M. Polarization and the politics of education: what moves partisan opinion? KEDI J. Educ. Policy 35, 566–589 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kalmoe, N. P. & Mason, L. Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2022).

  • 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
     

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

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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
     

  • 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).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jahani, E. et al. Exposure to common enemies can increase political polarization: evidence from a cooperation experiment with automated partisans. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/x2dby (2020).

  • 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).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Levendusky, M. S. Americans, not partisans: can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? J. Polit. 80, 59–70 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Levendusky, M. S. When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opin. Q. 82, 583–592 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Reininger, K. M., Krott, N. R., Hoenisch, M., Scheunemann, J. & Moritz, S. Targeting our blind spot: a metacognitive intervention ameliorates negative feelings, evaluations, and stereotypes towards conservatives in a liberal sample. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 8, 453–472 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Stancato, D. M. & Keltner, D. Awe, ideological conviction, and perceptions of ideological opponents. Emotion 21, 61–72 (2021).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Stanley, M. L., Whitehead, P. S., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Seli, P. Exposure to opposing reasons reduces negative impressions of ideological opponents. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 91, 104030 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Warner, B. R., Horstman, H. K. & Kearney, C. C. Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 48, 459–477 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Warner, B. R. & Villamil, A. A test of imagined contact as a means to improve cross-partisan feelings and reduce attribution of malevolence and acceptance of political violence. Commun. Monogr. 84, 447–465 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wojcieszak, M. & Warner, B. R. Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Polit. Commun. 37, 789–811 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Zoizner, A., Shenhav, S. R., Fogel-Dror, Y. & Sheafer, T. Strategy news is good news: how journalistic coverage of politics reduces affective polarization. Polit. Commun. 38, 604–623 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1369–1380 (2021).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Carothers, T. & O’Donohue, A. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (Brookings Institution Press, 2019).

  • Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. M. Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization Working Paper 26669 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26669 (NBER, 2021).

  • Abramowitz, A. I. & Saunders, K. L. Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: social identity vs. ideology. Polit. Res. Q. 59, 175–187 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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
     

  • Lupia, A. Uninformed: Why People Seem to Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).

  • Toward a more responsible two-party system: a report of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 44, 1–99 (1950).

  • Rudolph, T. J. & Hetherington, M. J. Affective polarization in political and nonpolitical settings. Int. J. Public Opin. 33, 591–606 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Amira, K., Wright, J. C. & Goya-Tocchetto, D. In-group love versus out-group hate: which is more important to partisans and when? Polit. Behav. 43, 473–494 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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
     

  • Sunstein, C. R. Partyism. Univ. Chic. Leg. Forum 2015, 1–27 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Crawford, J. T. & Pilanski, J. M. Political intolerance, right and left. Polit. Psychol. 35, 841–851 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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
     

  • Druckman, J. N. & Levendusky, M. S. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opin. Q. 83, 114–122 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Skytte, R. Dimensions of elite partisan polarization: disentangling the effects of incivility and issue polarization. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1457–1475 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • McCoy, J. & Somer, M. Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: comparative evidence and possible remedies. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 681, 234–271 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Broockman, D., Kalla, J. & Westwood, S. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Am. J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12719 (2022).

  • Voelkel, J. G. et al. Interventions reducing affective polarization do not improve anti-democratic attitudes. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7evmp (2021).

  • Pasek, M., Karlinsky, L.-O. A., Levy-Vene, A. & Moore-Berg, S. Biased and inaccurate meta-perceptions about out-partisans’ support for democratic principles may erode democratic norms. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qjy6t (2021).

  • Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14864–14872 (2020).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Jones, D. R. Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Polit. Res. Q. 54, 125–141 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • In Changing U.S. Electorate, Race and Education Remain Stark Dividing Lines https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/ (Pew Research Center, 2020).

  • Westwood, S. J. & Peterson, E. The inseparability of race and partisanship in the United States. Polit. Behav. 44, 1125–1147 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T. & Wetherell, G. The ideological-conflict hypothesis: intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 27–34 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wetherell, G. A., Br, M. J. & Reyna, C. Discrimination across the ideological divide: the role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4, 658–667 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Crawford, J. T. & Brandt, M. J. Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 40–45 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Briscoe, F. & Joshi, A. Bringing the boss’s politics in: supervisor political ideology and the gender gap in earnings. Acad. Manage. J. 60, 1415–1441 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Chen, M. K. & Rohla, R. The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science 360, 1020–1024 (2018).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., Liu, M. L. & Nam, J. S. Can friendships be bipartisan? The effects of political ideology on peer relationships. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14, 819–834 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lee, A. H.-Y. Social trust in polarized times: how perceptions of political polarization affect Americans’ trust in each other. Polit. Behav. 1–22 (2022).

  • McConnell, W. A. Political polarization is a good thing. Harvard Crimson (23 April 2021).

  • Yudkin, D., Hawkins, S. & Dixon, T. The perception gap: how false impressions are pulling Americans apart. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r3h5q (2019).

  • Ahler, D. J. Self-fulfilling misperceptions of public polarization. J. Polit. 76, 607–620 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mernyk, J., Pink, S., Druckman, J. & Willer, R. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2116851119 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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
     

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

  • Berry, J. M. & Sobieraj, S. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  • Bail, C. A. Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021).

  • Kubin, E. & von Sikorski, C. The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 45, 188–206 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Parker, V. A., Feinberg, M., Tullett, A. & Wilson, A. E. The ties that blind: misperceptions of the opponent fringe and the miscalibration of political contempt. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cr23g (2021).

  • Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. Digital media and democracy: a systematic review of causal and correlational evidence worldwide. Preprint at SocArXiv https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/p3z9v (2021).

  • Rathje, S., Bavel, J. J. V. & van der Linden, S. Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024292118 (2021).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nordbrandt, M. Affective polarization in the digital age: testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties. New Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211044393 (2021).

  • Casas, A., Menchen-Trevino, E. & Wojcieszak, M. Exposure to extremely partisan news from the other political side shows scarce boomerang effects. Polit. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09769-9 (2022).

  • Lang, C. & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. Partisan sorting in the United States, 1972–2012: new evidence from a dynamic analysis. Polit. Geogr. 48, 119–129 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mummolo, J. & Nall, C. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Polit. 79, 45–59 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Abrams, S. J. & Fiorina, M. P. ‘The big sort’ that wasn’t: a skeptical reexamination. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 45, 203–210 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G. A. & Martí, I. Social innovation: integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Bus. Soc. 58, 887–918 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A. & Haidt, J. The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE 7, e50092 (2012).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cassese, E. C. Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Polit. Behav. 43, 29–50 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Martherus, J. L., Martinez, A. G., Piff, P. K. & Theodoridis, A. G. Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Polit. Behav. 43, 517–540 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A. & Rogers, T. Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition 188, 98–107 (2019).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Peters, U. How (many) descriptive claims about political polarization exacerbate polarization. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 9, 24–36 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ecker, U. K. H. & Ang, L. C. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Polit. Psychol. 40, 241–260 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Stanley, M. L., Sinclair, A. H. & Seli, P. Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents. J. Pers. 88, 1196–1216 (2020).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hagmann, D., Minson, J. & Tinsley, C. Personal narratives build trust across ideological divides. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sw7nz (2020).

  • Kalla, J. & Broockman, D. Voter outreach campaigns can reduce affective polarization among implementing political activists. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000132 (2022).

  • Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R. & Sloman, S. A. Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychol. Sci. 24, 939–946 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Crawford, J. T. & Ruscio, J. Asking people to explain complex policies does not increase political moderation: three preregistered failures to closely replicate Fernbach, Rogers, Fox, and Sloman’s (2013) findings.Psychol. Sci. 32, 611–621 (2021).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kaufman, R. R. & Haggard, S. Democratic decline in the United States: what can we learn from middle-income backsliding? Perspect. Polit. 17, 417–432 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Easton, M. J. & Holbein, J. B. The democracy of dating: how political affiliations shape relationship formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 8, 260–272 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior. J. Polit. 79, 269–283 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Praet, S., Guess, A. M., Tucker, J. A., Bonneau, R. & Nagler, J. What’s not to like? Facebook page likes reveal limited polarization in lifestyle preferences. Polit. Commun. 39, 311–338 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hetherington, M. & Weiler, J. Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018).

  • Denning, K. R. & Hodges, S. D. When polarization triggers out-group ‘counter-projection’ across the political divide. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 48, 638–656 (2022).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sherman, D. K., Brookfield, J. & Ortosky, L. Intergroup conflict and barriers to common ground: a self-affirmation perspective. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 11, e12364 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A. & Dovidio, J. F. Reducing intergroup bias: the benefits of recategorization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 239–249 (1989).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. in Organizational Identity: A Reader (eds. Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M.) 56-65 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).

  • Sherif, M. Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. Am. J. Sociol. 63, 349–356 (1958).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., McDonald, S. A. & Lamoreaux, M. J. Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13, 403–423 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brandt, M. J. & Turner-Zwinkels, F. M. No additional evidence that proximity to the July 4th holiday affects affective polarization. Collabra Psychol. 6, 39 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & McGarty, C. Self and collective: cognition and social context. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 454–463 (1994).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Enten, H. The NFL is the rare thing that brings all Americans—Democrats and Republicans—together. CNN (23 January 2022).

  • Putnam, R. D., Campbell, D. E. & Garrett, S. R. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (Simon and Schuster, 2012).

  • Piper, A. & So, R. J. Study shows books can bring Republicans and Democrats together. Guardian (12 October 2016).

  • Balietti, S., Getoor, L., Goldstein, D. G. & Watts, D. J. Reducing opinion polarization: effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e21125521198 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, 1954).

  • Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact (Psychology Press, 2011).

  • Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 751–783 (2006).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bagci, S. C., Piyale, Z. E., Bircek, N. I. & Ebcim, E. Think beyond contact: reformulating imagined intergroup contact theory by adding friendship potential. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21, 1034–1052 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Baron, H. et al. Can Americans depolarize? Assessing the effects of reciprocal group reflection on partisan polarization. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3x7z8 (2021).

  • Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F. & Gino, F. Conversational receptiveness: improving engagement with opposing views. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 160, 131–148 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Puryear, C. & Gray, K. Using ‘balanced pragmatism’ in political discussions increases cross-partisan respect. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhpdt (2021).

  • Levendusky, M. S. & Stecula, D. A. We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  • Settle, J. E. & Carlson, T. N. Opting out of political discussions. Polit. Commun. 36, 476–496 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Carlson, T. N., McClean, C. T. & Settle, J. E. Follow your heart: could psychophysiology be associated with political discussion network homogeneity? Polit. Psychol. 41, 165–187 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mutz, D. C. The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 838–855 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Carpenter, J., Brady, W., Crockett, M., Weber, R. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. Political polarization and moral outrage on social media. Conn. Law Rev. 52, 1106–1120 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Graham, J., & Yudkin, D. A. in The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology (eds. Vargas, M. & Doris, J. M.) 759–778 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).

  • 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 (2022).

  • Voelkel, J. G., Ren, D. & Brandt, M. J. Inclusion reduces political prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 95, 104149 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tuller, H. M., Bryan, C. J., Heyman, G. D. & Christenfeld, N. J. S. Seeing the other side: perspective taking and the moderation of extremity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 59, 18–23 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Abeywickrama, R. S., Rhee, J. J., Crone, D. L. & Laham, S. M. Why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization: the role of self-persuasion. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 8, 2195–3325 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Iyengar, S., Konitzer, T. & Tedin, K. The home as a political fortress: family agreement in an era of polarization. J. Polit. 80, 1326–1338 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

  • McDonald, I. Migration and sorting in the American electorate: evidence from the 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Am. Polit. Res. 39, 512–533 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. Voter migration and the geographic sorting of the American electorate. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103, 856–870 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. Seeking politically compatible neighbors? The role of neighborhood partisan composition in residential sorting. Polit. Geogr. 48, 130–142 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kinsella, C. J., Mctague, C. & Raleigh, K. Closely and deeply divided: purple counties in the 2016 presidential election. Appl. Geogr. 127, 102386 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kubota, J. T., Peiso, J., Marcum, K. & Cloutier, J. Intergroup contact throughout the lifespan modulates implicit racial biases across perceivers’ racial group. PLoS ONE 12, e0180440 (2017).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Lemmer, G. & Wagner, U. Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 152–168 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hewstone, M. & Schmid, K. Neighbourhood ethnic diversity and orientations toward Muslims in Britain: the role of intergroup contact. Polit. Q. 85, 320–325 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • MacInnis, C. C., Page-Gould, E. & Hodson, G. Multilevel intergroup contact and antigay prejudice (explicit and implicit): evidence of contextual contact benefits in a less visible group domain. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8, 243–251 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Fishkin, J., Siu, A., Diamond, L. & Bradburn, N. Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on ‘America in one room’. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 115, 1464–1481 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Manbeck, K. E. et al. Improving relations among conservatives and liberals on a college campus: a preliminary trial of a contextual-behavioral intervention. J. Contextual Behav. Sci. 10, 120–125 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. & Reno, R. R. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. Zanna, M. P.) Vol. 24, 201–234 (Academic, 1991).

  • Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J. & Bavel, J. J. V. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Psychol. Sci. 15, 978–1010 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Banks, A., Calvo, E., Karol, D. & Telhami, S. #Polarizedfeeds: three experiments on polarization, framing, and social media. Int. J. Press Polit. 26, 609–634 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2521–2526 (2019).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 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, 2056305120913983 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Lima, C. A whistleblower’s power: key takeaways from the Facebook Papers. Washington Post (26 October 2021).

  • Iyengar, S. & Massey, D. S. Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7656–7661 (2019).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Frimer, J. et al. Incivility is rising among American politicians on Twitter. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221083811 (2022).

  • Zingher, J. N. & Flynn, M. E. From on high: the effect of elite polarization on mass attitudes and behaviors, 1972–2012. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 23–45 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Banda, K. K. & Cluverius, J. Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Elect. Stud. 56, 90–101 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S. & Gentzkow, M. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 629–676 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Galvin, D. J. Party domination and base mobilization: Donald Trump and Republican Party building in a polarized era. Forum 18, 135–168 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Levendusky, M. Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Polit. Commun. 30, 565–581 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Parker, K., Morin, R. & Horowitz, J. M. Public Sees America’s Future in Decline on Many Fronts https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/03/21/public-sees-an-america-in-decline-on-many-fronts/ (Pew Research Center, 2019).

  • Mortensen, C. R. et al. Trending norms: a lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 10, 201–210 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

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

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wojcieszak, M., Winter, S. & Yu, X. Social norms and selectivity: effects of norms of open-mindedness on content selection and affective polarization. Mass Commun. Soc. 23, 455–483 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Persily, N. Solutions to Political Polarization in America (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  • Klein, E. Why We’re Polarized (Simon and Schuster, 2020).

  • Norrander, B. & Wendland, J. Open versus closed primaries and the ideological composition of presidential primary electorates. Elect. Stud. 42, 229–236 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Ahler, D. J., Citrin, J. & Lenz, G. S. Do open primaries improve representation? An experimental test of California’s 2012 top-two primary. Legis. Stud. Q. 41, 237–268 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Vliet, L. V., Tornberg, P. & Uitermark, J. Political systems and political networks: the structure of parliamentarians’ retweet networks in 19 countries. Int. J. Commun. 15, 2156–2176 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

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

  • Duverger, M. Party Politics and Pressure Groups: A Comparative Introduction (Crowell, 1972).

  • Grose, C. R. Reducing legislative polarization: top-two and open primaries are associated with more moderate legislators. J. Polit. Econ. 1, 267–287 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Nunan, R. in Democracy, Populism, and Truth (eds Navin, M. C. & Nunan, R.) 145–160 (Springer, 2020).

  • Fischer, S., Lee, A. & Lelkes, Y. Electoral systems and political attitudes: experimental evidence. SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3803603 (2021).

  • Barber, M. J. Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of American legislatures. J. Polit. 78, 296–310 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Mollen, S., Engelen, S., Kessels, L. T. E. & van den Putte, B. Short and sweet: the persuasive effects of message framing and temporal context in antismoking warning labels. J. Health Commun. 22, 20–28 (2017).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cialdini, R. B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion Revised Ed. (Harper Business, 2006).

  • Pressgrove, G., McKeever, B. W. & Jang, S. M. What is contagious? Exploring why content goes viral on Twitter: a case study of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 23, e1586 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Tavernise, S. & Cohn, N. The America that isn’t polarized. New York Times (24 September 2019).

  • Rogers, T., Milkman, K. L. & Volpp, K. G. Commitment devices: using initiatives to change behavior. JAMA 311, 2065–2066 (2014).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Sheeran, P., Webb, T. L. & Gollwitzer, P. M. The interplay between goal intentions and implementation intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 87–98 (2005).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Han, H., McKenna, E. & Oyakawa, M. Prisms of the People (Univ. Chicago Press, 2021).

  • Han, H. How Organizations Develop Activists: Civic Associations and Leadership in the 21st Century (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  • Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S. & Green, D. P. Prejudice reduction: progress and challenges. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 533–560 (2021).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Cunha, F., Foorman, B. R. & Yeager, D. S. Persistence and fade-out of educational-intervention effects: mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 21, 55–97 (2020).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • DeVoge, S. & Varble, D. L. The joint use of experimental and cognitive learning in the classroom: teaching with personal relevance. Teach. Psychol. 3, 168–171 (1976).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Paul, S. Political perspectives are the main course at these dinner gatherings. NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/04/518182530/political-perspectives-are-the-main-course-at-these-dinner-gatherings (4 March 2017).

  • Gjelten, T. Pastoring a purple church: ‘I absolutely bite my tongue sometimes’. NPR https://www.npr.org/2019/04/06/703356844/pastoring-a-purple-church-i-absolutely-bite-my-tongue-sometimes (6 April 2019).

  • Walton, G. M. & Wilson, T. D. Wise interventions: psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychol. Rev. 125, 617–655 (2018).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Brehm, J. W. A Theory of Psychological Reactance (Academic, 1966).

  • Milat, A. J., King, L., Bauman, A. E. & Redman, S. The concept of scalability: increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice. Health Promot. Int. 28, 285–298 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Vincent, J. Twitter is bringing its ‘read before you retweet’ prompt to all users. Verge https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21455635/twitter-read-before-you-tweet-article-prompt-rolling-out-globally-soon (25 September 2020).

  • Simonsson, O., Narayanan, J. & Marks, J. Love thy (partisan) neighbor: brief befriending meditation reduces affective polarization. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 1577–1593 (2021).

  • Sheeran, P., Klein, W. M. P. & Rothman, A. J. Health behavior change: moving from observation to intervention. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68, 573–600 (2017).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Moore-Berg, S. et al. Translating social science for peace: benefits, challenges, and recommendations. Peace Confl. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000604 (2022).

  • Rothman, A. & Sheeran, P. The operating conditions framework: integrating mechanisms and moderators in health behavior interventions. Health Psychol. 40, 845–857 (2020).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Skitka, L. J. The psychology of moral conviction. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4, 267–281 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L. & Hall Jamieson, K. Science curiosity and political information processing. Polit. Psychol. 38, 179–199 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Halperin, E., Pliskin, R., Saguy, T., Liberman, V. & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation and the cultivation of political tolerance: searching for a new track for intervention. J. Confl. Resolut. 58, 1110–1138 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Michelitch, K. & Utych, S. Electoral cycle fluctuations in partisanship: global evidence from eighty-six countries. J. Polit. 80, 412–427 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Anderson, C. A. Heat and violence. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10, 33–38 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bandura, A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol. Health 13, 623–649 (1998).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wojcieszak, M. & Garrett, R. K. Social identity, selective exposure, and affective polarization: how priming national identity shapes attitudes toward immigrants via news selection. Hum. Commun. Res. 44, 247–273 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Grimes, D. R., Bauch, C. T. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 171511 (2018).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Spring, V. L., Cameron, C. D. & Cikara, M. The upside of outrage. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 1067–1069 (2018).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar
     



  • Source link

    Friends, this isn’t the time to be complacent. If you are ready to fight for the soul of this nation, you can start by donating to elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris by clicking the button below.

                                       

    Thank you so much for supporting Joe Biden’s Presidential campaign.

    What do you think?

    Written by Politixia

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.

    Ken Burns: ‘We’re in perhaps the most difficult crisis in the history of America’ | US television

    What Really Is the Woman King Controversy? Explained!