Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3758449 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jihye Park (0000-0001-5139-7229, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, corresponding author), Benjamin R Warner (0000-0002-2405-4842, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA), Mitchell S Mckinney (University of Akron Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences, Akron, OH, USA), Cassandra Kearney (University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA), Michael W Kearney (0000-0002-0730-4694, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA), G E Kim (0000-0001-7191-5134, University of Missouri), Go-Eun Kim (0000-0001-8091-9161, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 69 |
| Issue | 8 |
| Pages | 1012-1029 |
| Publication date | 2025-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Behavioral Scientist (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-7642 • E-ISSN: 1552-3381 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/00027642211046551 |
| OpenAlex | W3205025680 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 31 |
This study presents the results of a quasi-experiment to assess the effects of viewing the live televised general election presidential and vice-presidential campaign debates. We contribute to a growing empirical record on the polarizing effects of campaign debates by testing some contextual variables that have confounded past researchers. Specifically, we use Trump's aggressive first debate performance as a test-case of polarizing content and compare it with Trump's second debate performance along with the other 2020 debates. We also test whether, as some have hypothesized, vice-presidential debates are more polarizing. Finally, we consider Biden-a candidate who has been polarizing and depolarizing in his vice-presidential debates, as a candidate-specific source of uncertainty in existing findings. We find further evidence that campaign debates increase ingroup affection-or the extent to which co-partisans reward the ingroup candidate. Conversely, outgroup hostility did not increase even after Trump's first debate. We conclude that debates may contribute to polarization, but only through ingroup affection, not outgroup animosity
Affection · Hostility · Ingroups and outgroups · Outgroup · Polarization (electrochemistry) · Political science · Politics · Presidential system · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology
Social Cognition
Uncivil Agreement
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure
A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates
Presidential debates—are they helpful to voters
Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of debates
Presidential Debates, Partisan Motivations, and Political Interest
Battles for branding
From Social to Political Identity
On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects
Framing and Deliberation
Fear and Loathing across Party Lines
Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Affect, Not Ideology
The case for motivated reasoning
The power and limitations of televised presidential debates
Expressive Partisanship
The Rise of Uncivil Agreement
Will the "Real" Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image
How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation
Social identity and intergroup behaviour
Tweeting Along Partisan Lines
Implications of Pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |