IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v84y2003i1p71-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized?—An Update

Author

Listed:
  • John H. Evans

Abstract

Objective I examine polarization in public opinion using the method of DiMaggio, Evans, and Bryson (DEB) (1996), but go further than DEB by using newly available years of survey data. Method Like DEB, I derive aggregate distributional parameters for social groups in each year of the surveys, and then regress the year of the surveys on each parameter. Results As in DEB's original paper, there is little evidence of general polarization in attitudes between the early 1970s and today. However, while DEB found some evidence that polarization in the public may be the result of polarization in our political system, with the additional years of data this conclusion is inescapable. Conclusions Although political scientists have recently found polarization among our elected officials on economic issues, it seems clear that members of the public who identify with the partisan labels of our political system are becoming polarized on moral issues.

Suggested Citation

  • John H. Evans, 2003. "Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized?—An Update," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(1), pages 71-90, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:1:p:71-90
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.8401005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8401005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.8401005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hetherington, Marc J., 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 619-631, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    2. Sarah K. Cowan, 2013. "Cohort Abortion Measures for the United States," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(2), pages 289-307, June.
    3. Ugur Ozdemir & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2014. "Measuring Public Preferential Polarization," Working Papers hal-00954497, HAL.
    4. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    5. Jacob R. Brown & Enrico Cantoni & Ryan D. Enos & Vincent Pons & Emilie Sartre, 2023. "The increase in partisan segregation in the United States," Discussion Papers 2023-09, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    6. Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay & Kalyan Chatterjee & Jaideep Roy, 2020. "Extremist Platforms: Political Consequences Of Profit‐Seeking Media," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1173-1193, August.
    7. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    8. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    9. Raquel Fernández & Sahar Parsa, 2022. "Gay Politics Goes Mainstream: Democrats, Republicans and Same‐sex Relationships," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(S1), pages 86-109, June.
    10. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Stephan Lewandowsky & Cass R. Sunstein & Ralph Hertwig, 2020. "How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1102-1109, November.
    11. Duane F. Alwin & Paula A. TufiÅŸ, 2016. "The Changing Dynamics of Class and Culture in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 663(1), pages 229-269, January.
    12. Cheuk Hang Au & Kevin K. W. Ho & Dickson K.W. Chiu, 2022. "The Role of Online Misinformation and Fake News in Ideological Polarization: Barriers, Catalysts, and Implications," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1331-1354, August.
    13. Christina Biedny & Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Exploring Polarization in US Food Policy Opinions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 434-454, September.
    14. Sara K. Yeo & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele, 2015. "Selecting Our Own Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 172-191, March.
    15. Keith Poole, 2007. "Changing minds? Not in Congress!," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 435-451, June.
    16. Andreas Flache, 2018. "About Renegades And Outgroup Haters: Modeling The Link Between Social Influence And Intergroup Attitudes," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-32, September.
    17. Ramón José Torregrosa Montaner, 2017. "Public good provision and social loss under polarization," Working Papers. Serie AD 2017-03, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    18. Jae Lee, 2015. "Assessing Mass Opinion Polarization in the US Using Relative Distribution Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 571-598, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hans Gersbach & Philippe Muller & Oriol Tejada, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Electoral Competition with Costly Policy Changes," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 17/270, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    2. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    3. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Politicize the Judiciary," Working Paper Series rwp15-001, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Paul Goren & Christopher M. Federico & Miki Caul Kittilson, 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 805-820, October.
    5. Ondrej Rolnik, 2022. "The influence of economic disparities of regions on political polarization in Czech Republic," MENDELU Working Papers in Business and Economics 2022-84, Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    6. Lee, Barton E., 2022. "Gridlock, leverage, and policy bundling," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Julia Azari & Marc J. Hetherington, 2016. "Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 92-109, September.
    8. William Hankins & Gary Hoover & Paul Pecorino, 2017. "Party polarization, political alignment, and federal grant spending at the state level," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 351-389, November.
    9. Christopher Wickert & Antonino Vaccaro & Joep Cornelissen, 2017. "“Buying” Corporate Social Responsibility: Organisational Identity Orientation as a Determinant of Practice Adoption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 497-514, May.
    10. Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth & Lupia, Arthur & Prior, Markus, 2006. "Public Ignorance and Estate Tax Repeal: The Effect of Partisan Differences and Survey Incentives," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 59(3), pages 425-437, September.
    11. Corwin D. Smidt, 2017. "Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 365-381, April.
    12. Bang Quan Zheng, 2022. "Elite polarization and mass policy attitudes: A study of the 2010 senate election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1202-1220, September.
    13. Mark D. Ramirez, 2009. "The Dynamics of Partisan Conflict on Congressional Approval," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 681-694, July.
    14. Danielle Joesten Martin, 2022. "Ideological and partisan biases in ratings of candidate quality in U.S. House elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 622-634, May.
    15. Anja Neundorf & James Adams, 2014. "The Micro-foundation of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens' Issue Salience and Party Attachments," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 692, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    16. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    17. Levi Boxell & Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2017. "Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics," NBER Working Papers 23258, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Tejada, Oriol, 2020. "The Optimal Length of Political Terms," CEPR Discussion Papers 14857, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zápal, Jan, 2017. "Dynamic Elections and Ideological Polarization," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 505-534, October.
    20. Jung, Jihye & Mittal, Vikas, 2020. "Political Identity and the Consumer Journey: A Research Review," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 55-73.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:1:p:71-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.