There is growing recognition that “affective polarization” may present a threat to democratic stability. This concept emphasizes the emotional divide between political groups, nudging the discourse beyond mere policy disagreements. In a recent paper published in Cognition and Emotion, Bert N. Bakker and Yphtach Lelkes argue for a clearer conceptualization of affective polarization to more effectively address its roots and implications.
Political scientists have traditionally overlooked psychological literature on emotions, which has resulted in single-dimensional measures of affect. The literature on polarization reveals varied definitions and operationalizations, resulting in confusion and “conceptual slippage” such as using various terms interchangeably (e.g., negative partisanship, pernicious polarization).
The researchers call for a clear delineation of affective polarization rooted in social identity theory, which posits partisanship functions similarly to other social identities, where emotional responses are shared among the group members.
Indeed, empirical data from the American National Election Study supports this idea, showing a trend of increased emotional alignment within political groups over time. Various studies also show that political messages can trigger affective responses, captured using physiological measures like skin conductance and facial electromyography.
For example, people have stronger physiological reactions to out-party relative to in-party messages, highlighting the visceral nature of political affect. Discrete emotions also play a role in political behavior and attitudes. For instance, anger can increase reliance on polarizing heuristics and motivated reasoning, resulting in greater political bias, whereas positive emotions such as enthusiasm encourage political engagement (such as voting and campaigning)—though sometimes toward extreme candidates.
Affective polarization is not merely about political preference and voting behavior, but has the capacity to erode democrating norms, drive intolerance, and perhaps even partisan violence. While some studies find weak correlations between dislike of the opposing party and support for undemocratic practices, others suggest that increased inter-party liking does not necessarily reduce anti-democratic attitudes. Thus, simply increasing positive feelings towards the out-group may not be sufficient to mitigate these effects.
The link between affective polarization and anti-democratic attitudes is complicated and not fully understood.
The researchers call for interdisciplinary collaboration and adoption of a multidimensional approach to studying emotions in politics, which can also serve to better identify strategies that can foster healthier political discourse and more resilient democratic institutions.
The paper, “Putting the affect into affective polarisation”, was authored by Bert N. Bakker and Yphtach Lelkes.