Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-5
Intraindividual Changes in Political Identity Strength (But Not Direction) Are Associated With Political Animosity in the United States and the Netherlands
We test if within-person changes in political identities are associated with within-person changes in political animosity in two longitudinal studies (United States N = 552, Waves = 26; Netherlands N = 1,670, Waves = 12). Typical studies examine cross-sectional associations without assessing within-person change. Our work provides a stronger test of the relationship. We find that within-person changes in the strength of people’s ideological and partisan identities are associated with increased political animosity. We found no such associations with within-person changes in identity direction. These patterns were robust to covariates and emerged in both studies. In addition to these average effects, we found substantial heterogeneity across participants in the associations among identity strength, identity direction, and political animosity. We did not find robust and replicable moderators for this heterogeneity. These findings suggest that identity strength (but not identity direction) is a key, if heterogenous, factor in changes in political animosity.
AllemandM.MartinM. (2016). On correlated change in personality. European Psychologist, 21, 237–253.
2.
BandaK. K.CluveriusJ. (2018). Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Electoral Studies, 56, 90–101.
3.
BankertA.HuddyL.RosemaM. (2017). Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Political Behavior, 39, 103–132.
4.
BenjaminD. J.BergerJ. O.JohannessonM.NosekB. A.WagenmakersE. J.BerkR.JohnsonV. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 6–10.
5.
BolgerN.ZeeK. S.Rossignac-MilonM.HassinR. R. (2019). Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 148, 601–618.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1–66). Elsevier Academic Press.
8.
BrandtM. J.MorganG. S. (2022). Between-person methods provide limited insight about within-person belief systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123, 621–635.
9.
BrandtM. J.Turner-ZwinkelsF. M.KubinE. (2021). Political psychology data from a 26-wave Yearlong Longitudinal Study (2019–2020). Journal of Open Psychology Data, 9, Article 2.
10.
BrownJ. K.HohmanZ. P. (2022). Extreme party animals: Effects of political identification and ideological extremity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52, 351–362.
11.
BrownR. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.
12.
BryanC. J.TiptonE.YeagerD. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 980–989.
13.
BurkeB. L.MartensA.FaucherE. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 155–195.
14.
CarvalhoC.FellerA.MurrayJ.WoodyS.YeagerD. (2019). Assessing treatment effect variation in observational studies: Results from a data challenge. Observational Studies, 5, 21–35.
15.
ChanC.ChanG. C. H.LeeperT. J.BeckerJ. (2018). rio: A Swiss-army knife for data file I/O (R package version, 0.5.16).
16.
CliffordS.SheagleyG.PistonS. (2021). Increasing precision without altering treatment effects: Repeated measures designs in survey experiments. American Political Science Review, 115, 1048–1065.
17.
CorrellJ.JuddC. M.ParkB.WittenbrinkB. (2010). Measuring prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 45–62). Sage.
18.
CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J.InbarY.ChambersJ. R.MotylM. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 383–412.
19.
DiasN.LelkesY. (2022). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science, 66, 775–790.
20.
DingP.FellerA.MiratrixL. (2019). Decomposing treatment effect variation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114, 304–317.
21.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly, 83, 114–122.
22.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.
23.
EpskampS.WaldorpL. J.MõttusR.BorsboomD. (2018). The Gaussian graphical model in cross-sectional and time-series data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53, 453–480.
24.
FedericoC. M. (2021). When do psychological differences predict political differences? Engagement and the psychological bases of political polarization. In van ProoijenJ. W. (Ed.), The psychology of political polarization (pp. 17–37). Routledge.
25.
FisherA. J.MedagliaJ. D.JeronimusB. F. (2018). Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E6106–E6115.
26.
GanzachY.SchulY. (2021). Partisan ideological attitudes: Liberals are tolerant; the intelligent are intolerant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 1551–1566.
27.
GarrettK. N.BankertA. (2020). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 621–640.
28.
GidronN.AdamsJ.HorneW. (2020). American affective polarization in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.
29.
HamakerE. L. (2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In MehlM. R.ConnerT. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). The Guilford Press.
30.
HamakerE. L. (2023). The curious case of the cross-sectional correlation. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2022.2155930
31.
HarteveldE. (2021a). Fragmented foes: Affective polarization in the multiparty context of the Netherlands. Electoral Studies, 71, 102332.
32.
HarteveldE. (2021b). Ticking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization. Electoral Studies, 72, 102337.
33.
HenryP. J.NapierJ. L. (2017). Education is related to greater ideological prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 930–942.
34.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
35.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.
36.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.
37.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideologya social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.
38.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707.
39.
JaskoK.LaFreeG.PiazzaJ.BeckerM. H. (2022). A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2122593119.
40.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208.
41.
KalmoeN. P.MasonL. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.
42.
KileyK.VaiseyS. (2020). Measuring stability and change in personal culture using panel data. American Sociological Review, 85, 477–506.
43.
KinderD. R.KalmoeN. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. University of Chicago Press.
44.
KivikangasJ. M.Fernández-CastillaB.JärveläS.RavajaN.LönnqvistJ. E. (2021). Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147, 55–94.
45.
KleinR. A.CookC. L.EbersoleC. R.VitielloC.NosekB. A.HilgardJ.AhnP. H.BradyA. J.ChartierC. R.ChristophersonC. D.ClayS.CollissonB.CrawfordJ. T.CromarR.GardinerG.GosnellC. L.GraheJ.Hall HowardI.. . . RatliffK. A. (2022). Many Labs 4: Failure to replicate mortality salience effect with and without original author involvement. Collabra: Psychology, 8, 35271.
46.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
47.
LaiC. K.MariniM.LehrS. A.CerrutiC.ShinJ. E. L.Joy-GabaJ. A.HoA. K.TeachmanB. A.WojcikS. P.KolevaS. P.FrazierR. S.HeiphetzL.ChenE. E.TurnerR. N.HaidtJ.KesebirS.HawkinsC. B.SchaeferH. S.RubichiS.. . . NosekB. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143, 1765–1785.
48.
LelkesY.SoodG.IyengarS. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 5–20.
49.
LevenduskyM. S. (2009). The partisan sort. University of Chicago Press.
50.
LevenduskyM. S. (2018). When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 583–592.
51.
LyonsB. A.FarhartC. E.HallM. P.KotcherJ.LevenduskyM.MillerJ. M.NyhanB.RaimiK. T.ReiflerJ.SaundersK. L.SkytteR.ZhaoX. (2022). Self-affirmation and identity-driven political behavior. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9, 225–240.
52.
MartherusJ. L.MartinezA. G.PiffP. K.TheodoridisA. G. (2021). Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior, 43, 517–540.
53.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.
54.
MasonL. (2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 866–887.
55.
MorganG. S.WisneskiD. C. (2017). The structure of political ideology varies between and within people: Implications for theories about ideology’s causes. Social Cognition, 35, 395–414.
56.
OndercinH. L.LizotteM. K. (2021). You’ve lost that loving feeling: How gender shapes affective polarization. American Politics Research, 49, 282–292.
PeerE.RothschildD.GordonA.EverndenZ.DamerE. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 1643–1662.
59.
PloyhartR. E.MacKenzieW. I.Jr. (2015). Two waves of measurement do not a longitudinal study make. In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 85–99). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
60.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computinghttps://www.R-project.org/
61.
RevelleW. (2020). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (R package version = 2.0.8). Northwestern University, Evanston. https://CRAN.R project.org/package=psych
ScherpenzeelA. C.DasM. (2010). “True” longitudinal and probability-based internet panels: Evidence from the Netherlands. In DasM.EsterP.KaczmirekL. (Eds.), Social and behavioral research and the internet: Advances in applied methods and research strategies (pp. 77–104). Taylor & Francis.
64.
SettleJ. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.
65.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.
WestE. A. (2020). Replication data for: Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization (Version V1) [Data set]. Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OF2PIH
69.
WestE. A.IyengarS. (2022). Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization. Political Behavior, 44, 807–838.
70.
WestwoodS. J.IyengarS.WalgraveS.LeonisioR.MillerL.StrijbisO. (2018). The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 333–354.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
