AFFECT, NOT IDEOLOGY A SOCIAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE ON POLARIZATION
AFFECT, NOT IDEOLOGY A SOCIAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE ON POLARIZATION
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/poq/nfs038
复制
发表时间：
2012-09-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Lelkes, Yphtach
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Iyengar, Shanto;Sood, Gaurav;Lelkes, Yphtach
目前关于美国公众两极分化程度的辩论集中在党派的政策偏好发生了多大程度的变化。最大主义者声称，随着时间的推移，党派对政策的看法已经变得更加极端(Abramowitz，2010)，而极简主义者(Fiorina和Abrams，2009)则认为，大多数美国人仍然是中间派，所发生的少量离心式运动反映了分类，即党派和意识形态之间的联系增加。我们赞成以社会距离的经典概念为基础的两极分化的另一种定义(Bogardus 1947)。使用来自各种来源的数据，我们证明共和党人和民主党人都越来越不喜欢，甚至厌恶他们的对手。我们还发现，党派影响并不是始终如一的(也许是虚假的)建立在政策态度上。更可信的说法在于政治活动的性质；暴露在攻击非主流群体的信息中，强化了党派对对手的偏见观点。
The current debate over the extent of polarization in the American mass public focuses on the extent to which partisans' policy preferences have moved. Whereas maximalists claim that partisans' views on policies have become more extreme over time (Abramowitz 2010), minimalists (Fiorina and Abrams 2009) contend that the majority of Americans remain centrist, and that what little centrifugal movement has occurred reflects sorting, i.e., the increased association between partisanship and ideology. We argue in favor of an alternative definition of polarization, based on the classic concept of social distance (Bogardus 1947). Using data from a variety of sources, we demonstrate that both Republicans and Democrats increasingly dislike, even loathe, their opponents. We also find that partisan affect is inconsistently (and perhaps artifactually) founded in policy attitudes. The more plausible account lies in the nature of political campaigns; exposure to messages attacking the out-group reinforces partisans' biased views of their opponents.