In recent years, many possible explanations have been offered for why America has become a more polarized country. In this article, we introduce a new variable to the discussion. Rather than focusing on specific policy beliefs or political attitudes, we instead suggest that social trust can be an important explanatory factor in predicting which Americans are most likely to be polarized. Through the analysis of ANES data, we find that individuals who are strong trusters of others are more likely to identify as Strong Democrats while those less likely to do so are more likely to self-identify as Strong Republicans. The article concludes by looking at how considering social trust as a predictor of polarization impacts our understanding of American politics.
AbramowitzA.SaundersK. (1998). Ideological realignment and the U.S. electorate. The Journal of Politics, 60, 634-652.
2.
AbramowitzA.SaundersK. (2006). Partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
3.
AlvarezM.BedollaL. G. (2003). The foundations of Latino voter partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 election. Journal of Politics, 65, 31-49.
4.
AveryJ. M. (2007). Race, partisanship, and political trust following Bush versus Gore (2000). Political Behavior, 29, 327-342.
5.
BinningK. (2007). It’s us against the world: How distrust in Americans versus people-in-general shapes competitive foreign policy preferences. Political Psychology, 28, 777-799.
6.
BondJ. R.FleisherR. (2000). Polarized politics: Congress and the President in a partisan era. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
7.
BrewerP.GrossK.AdayS.WillnatL. (2004). International trust and public opinion about world affairs. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 93-109.
8.
BrewerP.SteenbergenM. (2002). All against all: How beliefs about human nature shape foreign policy options. Political Psychology, 23, 39-58.
9.
CitrinJ.SidesJ. (2008). Immigration and the imagined community in Europe and the United States. Political Studies, 56, 33-56.
10.
CarminesE.BerkmanM. (1994). Ethos, ideology, and partisanship: Exploring the paradox of conservative Democrats. Political Behavior, 16, 203-218.
11.
CarminesE.StanleyH. (1992). The transformation of the New Deal party system: Social groups, political ideology, and changing partisanship among Northern whites, 1972-1988. Political Behavior, 14, 213-237.
12.
CarminesE.StimsonJ. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
ClaassenR. L.HightonB. (2009). Policy polarization among party elites and the significance of political awareness in the mass public. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 538-551.
14.
DiMaggioP.EvansJ.BrysonB. (1996). Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690-755.
15.
DixitA. K.WeibullJ. W. (2007). Political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 7351.
16.
EstebanJ.RayD. (1991). On the measurement of polarization (Institute for Economic Development Discussion Paper 18). Boston: Institute for Economic Development.
17.
EstebanJ.RayD. (1994). On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica, 62, 819-851.
18.
FranklinC.JacksonJ. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. The American Political Science Review, 77, 957-973.
19.
HerrerosF.CriadoH. (2009). Social trust, social capital, and perceptions of immigration. Political Studies, 57, 337-355.
20.
HetheringtonM. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619-632.
21.
HetheringtonM. J. (2009). Review article: Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 413-448.
22.
HutchingsV. L.ValentinoN. A. (2004). The centrality of race in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 383-408.
23.
InglehartR. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
InglehartR. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
JonesD. R. (2001). Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 125-141.
26.
KamC. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163-182.
27.
KitscheltH. (1995). The Radical right in Western Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28.
KochJ. W. (1994). Group identification in political context. Political Psychology, 15, 687-698.
29.
LaymanG. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
30.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002a). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 786-802.
31.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002b). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior, 24, 199-236.
32.
LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research, Volume 7). New York: The Free Press.
33.
MannT. E. (2006). Polarizing the House of Representatives: How much does gerrymandering matter?Red and Blue Nation, 263-283.
34.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization?American Journal of Political Science, 53, 666-680.
35.
McDanielE. L.EllisonC. G. (2008). God’s party? Race, religion, and partisanship over time. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 180-191.
36.
McDonaldM. P.PopkinS. L. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political Science Review, 95, 963-974.
37.
McGheeE.KrimmD. (2009). Party registration and the geography of party polarization. Polity, 41, 345-367.
38.
NicholsonS. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposition awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 403-410.
39.
NieN. (1976). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
OlsonJ. (2008). Whiteness and the polarization of American politics. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 704-718.
41.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1984). The polarization of American politics. The Journal of Politics, 46, 1061-1079.
42.
RohdeD. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
43.
RothsteinB.UslanerE. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58, 41-72.
44.
SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A.TetlockP. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
StasavageD. (2007). Polarization and publicity: Rethinking the benefits of deliberative democracy. Journal of Politics, 69, 59-72.
46.
StoneW.RapoportR.AbramowitzA. (1990). Sex and the caucus participant: The gender gap in 1984 and 1988. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 725-740.
47.
TorglerB. (2007). Trust in international organizations: An empirical investigation focusing on the United Nations (Working Paper 2006-20). Basel, Switzerland: Center for Research in Economics, Management, and the Arts.
48.
UslanerE. (2000-2001). Producing and consuming trust. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 569-590.
49.
WolfsonA. (2006). Red and blue nation? Causes, consequences, and correction of America’s polarized politics. Issues in Governance Studies, Number 1. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
50.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
