Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates

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 variabl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills) 2021-10, p.276422110465
Hauptverfasser: Park, Jihye, Warner, Benjamin R., McKinney, Mitchell S., Kearney, Cassandra, Kearney, Michael W., Kim, Go-Eun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 276422110465
container_title The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)
container_volume
creator Park, Jihye
Warner, Benjamin R.
McKinney, Mitchell S.
Kearney, Cassandra
Kearney, Michael W.
Kim, Go-Eun
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/00027642211046551
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_00027642211046551</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1177_00027642211046551</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-567474c7f22d7a5e24cc96f704c9080b1bd21d18539c5d4e693837b62c1ee01e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkMtKxDAYhYMoWGd8AHd5gWr-XNvlMONlYMAunHVJkz8Qqa0kQRifXqvuXB0O5-MsPkJugN0CGHPHGONGS84BmNRKwRmpQCleC9HAOamWvV6AS3KV8-t3ZUbxiuw6m0rMdqJ7j1OJ5UTt5OkmBHQlfiDt5tGm-GlLnCcaJ9olzPEHtSPd4WAL5jW5CHbMeP2XK3J8uH_ZPtWH58f9dnOoHbSm1EobaaQzgXNvrEIunWt1MEy6ljVsgMFz8NAo0TrlJepWNMIMmjtAZIBiReD316U554Shf0_xzaZTD6xfNPT_NIgvdBdO-Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Park, Jihye ; Warner, Benjamin R. ; McKinney, Mitchell S. ; Kearney, Cassandra ; Kearney, Michael W. ; Kim, Go-Eun</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Jihye ; Warner, Benjamin R. ; McKinney, Mitchell S. ; Kearney, Cassandra ; Kearney, Michael W. ; Kim, Go-Eun</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-7642</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3381</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/00027642211046551</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills), 2021-10, p.276422110465</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-567474c7f22d7a5e24cc96f704c9080b1bd21d18539c5d4e693837b62c1ee01e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Jihye</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warner, Benjamin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKinney, Mitchell S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Cassandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Michael W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Go-Eun</creatorcontrib><title>Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates</title><title>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)</title><description>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.</description><issn>0002-7642</issn><issn>1552-3381</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNplkMtKxDAYhYMoWGd8AHd5gWr-XNvlMONlYMAunHVJkz8Qqa0kQRifXqvuXB0O5-MsPkJugN0CGHPHGONGS84BmNRKwRmpQCleC9HAOamWvV6AS3KV8-t3ZUbxiuw6m0rMdqJ7j1OJ5UTt5OkmBHQlfiDt5tGm-GlLnCcaJ9olzPEHtSPd4WAL5jW5CHbMeP2XK3J8uH_ZPtWH58f9dnOoHbSm1EobaaQzgXNvrEIunWt1MEy6ljVsgMFz8NAo0TrlJepWNMIMmjtAZIBiReD316U554Shf0_xzaZTD6xfNPT_NIgvdBdO-Q</recordid><startdate>20211018</startdate><enddate>20211018</enddate><creator>Park, Jihye</creator><creator>Warner, Benjamin R.</creator><creator>McKinney, Mitchell S.</creator><creator>Kearney, Cassandra</creator><creator>Kearney, Michael W.</creator><creator>Kim, Go-Eun</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211018</creationdate><title>Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates</title><author>Park, Jihye ; Warner, Benjamin R. ; McKinney, Mitchell S. ; Kearney, Cassandra ; Kearney, Michael W. ; Kim, Go-Eun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c197t-567474c7f22d7a5e24cc96f704c9080b1bd21d18539c5d4e693837b62c1ee01e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Jihye</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warner, Benjamin R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKinney, Mitchell S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Cassandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Michael W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Go-Eun</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Jihye</au><au>Warner, Benjamin R.</au><au>McKinney, Mitchell S.</au><au>Kearney, Cassandra</au><au>Kearney, Michael W.</au><au>Kim, Go-Eun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates</atitle><jtitle>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)</jtitle><date>2021-10-18</date><risdate>2021</risdate><spage>276422110465</spage><pages>276422110465-</pages><issn>0002-7642</issn><eissn>1552-3381</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><doi>10.1177/00027642211046551</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-7642
ispartof The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills), 2021-10, p.276422110465
issn 0002-7642
1552-3381
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_00027642211046551
source SAGE Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Partisan Identity and Affective Polarization in Presidential Debates
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T07%3A49%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Partisan%20Identity%20and%20Affective%20Polarization%20in%20Presidential%20Debates&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20behavioral%20scientist%20(Beverly%20Hills)&rft.au=Park,%20Jihye&rft.date=2021-10-18&rft.spage=276422110465&rft.pages=276422110465-&rft.issn=0002-7642&rft.eissn=1552-3381&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/00027642211046551&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1177_00027642211046551%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true