Partisan affective polarization—the degree to which political party supporters dislike one another or their rival party—is on the rise in many countries, but especially the United States. Research shows or suggests that this type of polarization can have political, economic, and social consequences. For example, studies report that affective polarization can increase hiring discrimination and the propensity to dehumanize others. Many scholars are concerned that affective polarization can thwart compromise and block policies with strong support across party lines. Partisan bias refers to the individual-level measure of interparty animosity, while affective polarization is a system-level measure. Many studies focus on one or the other level, while some attempt to identify the relationship between individual-level mechanisms and aggregate trends. Scholars also study positive and negative partisanship—the constitutive parts of affective polarization—separately. Thermometer ratings are a commonly used measure, but alternative operationalizations have been developed to improve precision or capture a variety of definitions, dimensions, and scope conditions. Alternative causal hypotheses have been proposed and tested, but debates continue about their relative importance, scope conditions, and interaction. Much research has focused on the role of social and political identity in fostering group conflict. Alternatively, scholars posit that substantive policy disagreements and ideological polarization fuel partisan animosity. Independent of whether identity or ideology matters more, research suggests misperception, elite cues, radicalism, and fractionalization—on- and offline—can exacerbate rival-party dislike. An increasing number of studies focus on discriminating between alternative hypotheses and disentangling mechanisms. Practitioners and scholars explore ways to ameliorate affective polarization. While several promising approaches have been identified, there are also examples of interventions making things worse. Research shows that providing accurate information about the identity and policy preferences of rival-party supporters reduces affective polarization. Other successful examples include priming a cross-cutting identity and fostering deliberation among citizens. This bibliography outlines the literature and debates on partisan affective polarization, including its measures, effects, causes, and mitigation attempts. The term “affective polarization” can refer to many types of emotional divisions across various social groups. This bibliography centers on affective polarization among political party supporters.

Cite

Ársælsson, Kristinn Már, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2026. “Affective Polarization.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Communication. Ed. Patricia Moy. New York: Oxford University Press.