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).
Abramowitz, A. & Saunders, K. Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. Forum 3, 1–22 (2005).
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).
Bavel, J. J. V. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460–471 (2020).
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).
Duca, J. V. & Saving, J. L. Income inequality and political polarization: time series evidence over nine decades. Rev. Income Wealth 62, 445–466 (2016).
Houston, D. M. Polarization and the politics of education: what moves partisan opinion? KEDI J. Educ. Policy 35, 566–589 (2019).
Kingzette, J. et al. How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opin. Q. 85, 663–677 (2021).
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).
Heltzel, G. & Laurin, K. Polarization in America: two possible futures. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 179–184 (2020).
Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).
Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).
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).
Huddy, L. & Yair, O. Reducing affective polarization: warm group relations or policy compromise? Polit. Psychol. 42, 291–309 (2021).
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).
Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).
Levendusky, M. S. Americans, not partisans: can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? J. Polit. 80, 59–70 (2018).
Levendusky, M. S. When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opin. Q. 82, 583–592 (2018).
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).
Stancato, D. M. & Keltner, D. Awe, ideological conviction, and perceptions of ideological opponents. Emotion 21, 61–72 (2021).
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).
Warner, B. R., Horstman, H. K. & Kearney, C. C. Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 48, 459–477 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1369–1380 (2021).
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).
Mason, L. ‘I disrespectfully agree’: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 128–145 (2015).
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).
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).
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).
Sunstein, C. R. Partyism. Univ. Chic. Leg. Forum 2015, 1–27 (2014).
Crawford, J. T. & Pilanski, J. M. Political intolerance, right and left. Polit. Psychol. 35, 841–851 (2014).
Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. J. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 59, 690–707 (2015).
Druckman, J. N. & Levendusky, M. S. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opin. Q. 83, 114–122 (2019).
Skytte, R. Dimensions of elite partisan polarization: disentangling the effects of incivility and issue polarization. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 51, 1457–1475 (2019).
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).
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).
Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).
Jones, D. R. Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Polit. Res. Q. 54, 125–141 (2001).
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).
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).
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).
Crawford, J. T. & Brandt, M. J. Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 40–45 (2020).
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).
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).
Chen, M. K. & Rohla, R. The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science 360, 1020–1024 (2018).
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).
Brown, J. R. & Enos, R. D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 998–1008 (2021).
Enders, A. M. & Armaly, M. T. The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Polit. Behav. 41, 815–839 (2019).
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).
Mernyk, J., Pink, S., Druckman, J. & Willer, R. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2116851119 (2021).
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).
Zmigrod, L. The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 34–39 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
Mummolo, J. & Nall, C. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Polit. 79, 45–59 (2017).
Abrams, S. J. & Fiorina, M. P. ‘The big sort’ that wasn’t: a skeptical reexamination. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 45, 203–210 (2012).
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).
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).
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).
Cassese, E. C. Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Polit. Behav. 43, 29–50 (2019).
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).
Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A. & Rogers, T. Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition 188, 98–107 (2019).
Peters, U. How (many) descriptive claims about political polarization exacerbate polarization. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 9, 24–36 (2021).
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A. & Feinberg, M. Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 223–228 (2020).
Ecker, U. K. H. & Ang, L. C. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Polit. Psychol. 40, 241–260 (2019).
Stanley, M. L., Sinclair, A. H. & Seli, P. Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents. J. Pers. 88, 1196–1216 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
Easton, M. J. & Holbein, J. B. The democracy of dating: how political affiliations shape relationship formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 8, 260–272 (2020).
Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. Political homophily in social relationships: evidence from online dating behavior. J. Polit. 79, 269–283 (2017).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Rogowski, J. C. & Sutherland, J. L. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Polit. Behav. 38, 485–508 (2016).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Mutz, D. C. The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 838–855 (2002).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Gimpel, J. G. & Hui, I. Seeking politically compatible neighbors? The role of neighborhood partisan composition in residential sorting. Polit. Geogr. 48, 130–142 (2015).
Kinsella, C. J., Mctague, C. & Raleigh, K. Closely and deeply divided: purple counties in the 2016 presidential election. Appl. Geogr. 127, 102386 (2021).
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).
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).
Hewstone, M. & Schmid, K. Neighbourhood ethnic diversity and orientations toward Muslims in Britain: the role of intergroup contact. Polit. Q. 85, 320–325 (2014).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Banda, K. K. & Cluverius, J. Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Elect. Stud. 56, 90–101 (2018).
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S. & Gentzkow, M. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 629–676 (2020).
Galvin, D. J. Party domination and base mobilization: Donald Trump and Republican Party building in a polarized era. Forum 18, 135–168 (2020).
Levendusky, M. Partisan media exposure and attitudes toward the opposition. Polit. Commun. 30, 565–581 (2013).
Levendusky, M. & Malhotra, N. Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Polit. Commun. 33, 283–301 (2016).
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).
Levendusky, M. S. & Malhotra, N. (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opin. Q. 80, 378–391 (2016).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Sheeran, P., Webb, T. L. & Gollwitzer, P. M. The interplay between goal intentions and implementation intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 87–98 (2005).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Skitka, L. J. The psychology of moral conviction. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4, 267–281 (2010).
Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L. & Hall Jamieson, K. Science curiosity and political information processing. Polit. Psychol. 38, 179–199 (2017).
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).
Michelitch, K. & Utych, S. Electoral cycle fluctuations in partisanship: global evidence from eighty-six countries. J. Polit. 80, 412–427 (2018).
Anderson, C. A. Heat and violence. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 10, 33–38 (2001).
Bandura, A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol. Health 13, 623–649 (1998).
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).
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).
Spring, V. L., Cameron, C. D. & Cikara, M. The upside of outrage. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 1067–1069 (2018).
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.