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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills) 2021-10, p.276422110465 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 |