Intraindividual Changes in Political Identity Strength (But Not Direction) Are Associated With Political Animosity in the United States and the Netherlands

Abstract

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.

Keywords

identity partisanship ideology multilevel longitudinal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allemand

Martin

(2016). On correlated change in personality. European Psychologist, 21, 237–253.

Banda

K. K.

Cluverius

(2018). Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Electoral Studies, 56, 90–101.

Bankert

Huddy

Rosema

(2017). Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Political Behavior, 39, 103–132.

Benjamin

D. J.

Berger

J. O.

Johannesson

Nosek

B. A.

Wagenmakers

E. J.

Berk

Johnson

V. E.

(2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 6–10.

Bolger

Zee

K. S.

Rossignac-Milon

Hassin

R. R.

(2019). Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 148, 601–618.

Bolker

Robinson

(2021). broom.mixed: Tidying methods for mixed models (R package version, 0.2.7). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=broom.mixed

Brandt

M. J.

Crawford

J. T.

(2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. In Gawronski

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 1–66). Elsevier Academic Press.

Brandt

M. J.

Morgan

G. S.

(2022). Between-person methods provide limited insight about within-person belief systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123, 621–635.

Brandt

M. J.

Turner-Zwinkels

F. M.

Kubin

(2021). Political psychology data from a 26-wave Yearlong Longitudinal Study (2019–2020). Journal of Open Psychology Data, 9, Article 2.

10.

Brown

J. K.

Hohman

Z. P.

(2022). Extreme party animals: Effects of political identification and ideological extremity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52, 351–362.

11.

Brown

(2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.

12.

Bryan

C. J.

Tipton

Yeager

D. S.

(2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 980–989.

13.

Burke

B. L.

Martens

Faucher

E. H.

(2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 155–195.

14.

Carvalho

Feller

Murray

Woody

Yeager

(2019). Assessing treatment effect variation in observational studies: Results from a data challenge. Observational Studies, 5, 21–35.

15.

Chan

G. C. H.

Leeper

T. J.

Becker

(2018). rio: A Swiss-army knife for data file I/O (R package version, 0.5.16).

16.

Clifford

Sheagley

Piston

(2021). Increasing precision without altering treatment effects: Repeated measures designs in survey experiments. American Political Science Review, 115, 1048–1065.

17.

Correll

Judd

C. M.

Park

Wittenbrink

(2010). Measuring prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. In Dovidio

J. F.

Hewstone

Glick

Esses

V. M.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 45–62). Sage.

18.

Crawford

J. T.

Brandt

M. J.

Inbar

Chambers

J. R.

Motyl

(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.

Dias

Lelkes

(2022). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science, 66, 775–790.

20.

Ding

Feller

Miratrix

(2019). Decomposing treatment effect variation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114, 304–317.

21.

Druckman

J. N.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83, 114–122.

22.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.

23.

Epskamp

Waldorp

L. J.

Mõttus

Borsboom

(2018). The Gaussian graphical model in cross-sectional and time-series data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53, 453–480.

24.

Federico

C. M.

(2021). When do psychological differences predict political differences? Engagement and the psychological bases of political polarization. In van Prooijen

J. W.

(Ed.), The psychology of political polarization (pp. 17–37). Routledge.

25.

Fisher

A. J.

Medaglia

J. D.

Jeronimus

B. 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.

Ganzach

Schul

(2021). Partisan ideological attitudes: Liberals are tolerant; the intelligent are intolerant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 1551–1566.

27.

Garrett

K. N.

Bankert

(2020). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 621–640.

28.

Gidron

Adams

Horne

(2020). American affective polarization in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.

29.

Hamaker

E. L.

(2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In Mehl

M. R.

Conner

T. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). The Guilford Press.

30.

Hamaker

E. 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.

Harteveld

(2021a). Fragmented foes: Affective polarization in the multiparty context of the Netherlands. Electoral Studies, 71, 102332.

32.

Harteveld

(2021b). Ticking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization. Electoral Studies, 72, 102337.

33.

Henry

P. J.

Napier

J. L.

(2017). Education is related to greater ideological prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 930–942.

34.

Holm

(1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

35.

Huddy

Mason

Aarøe

(2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.

36.

Iyengar

Lelkes

Levendusky

Malhotra

Westwood

S. J.

(2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.

37.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideologya social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.

38.

Iyengar

Westwood

S. J.

(2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707.

39.

Jasko

LaFree

Piazza

Becker

M. 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.

Jost

J. T.

(2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208.

41.

Kalmoe

N. P.

Mason

(2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.

42.

Kiley

Vaisey

(2020). Measuring stability and change in personal culture using panel data. American Sociological Review, 85, 477–506.

43.

Kinder

D. R.

Kalmoe

N. P.

(2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. University of Chicago Press.

44.

Kivikangas

J. M.

Fernández-Castilla

Järvelä

Ravaja

Lönnqvist

J. E.

(2021). Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147, 55–94.

45.

Klein

R. A.

Cook

C. L.

Ebersole

C. R.

Vitiello

Nosek

B. A.

Hilgard

Ahn

P. H.

Brady

A. J.

Chartier

C. R.

Christopherson

C. D.

Clay

Collisson

Crawford

J. T.

Cromar

Gardiner

Gosnell

C. L.

Grahe

Hall Howard

. . . Ratliff

K. A.

(2022). Many Labs 4: Failure to replicate mortality salience effect with and without original author involvement. Collabra: Psychology, 8, 35271.

46.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. 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.

Lai

C. K.

Marini

Lehr

S. A.

Cerruti

Shin

J. E. L.

Joy-Gaba

J. A.

A. K.

Teachman

B. A.

Wojcik

S. P.

Koleva

S. P.

Frazier

R. S.

Heiphetz

Chen

E. E.

Turner

R. N.

Haidt

Kesebir

Hawkins

C. B.

Schaefer

H. S.

Rubichi

. . . Nosek

B. A.

(2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 143, 1765–1785.

48.

Lelkes

Sood

Iyengar

(2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 5–20.

49.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2009). The partisan sort. University of Chicago Press.

50.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2018). When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 583–592.

51.

Lyons

B. A.

Farhart

C. E.

Hall

M. P.

Kotcher

Levendusky

Miller

J. M.

Nyhan

Raimi

K. T.

Reifler

Saunders

K. L.

Skytte

Zhao

(2022). Self-affirmation and identity-driven political behavior. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9, 225–240.

52.

Martherus

J. L.

Martinez

A. G.

Piff

P. K.

Theodoridis

A. G.

(2021). Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior, 43, 517–540.

53.

Mason

(2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.

54.

Mason

(2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 866–887.

55.

Morgan

G. S.

Wisneski

D. 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.

Ondercin

H. L.

Lizotte

M. K.

(2021). You’ve lost that loving feeling: How gender shapes affective polarization. American Politics Research, 49, 282–292.

57.

Pedersen

T. L.

(2020). patchwork: The composer of plots (R package version 1.1.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork

58.

Peer

Rothschild

Gordon

Evernden

Damer

(2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 1643–1662.

59.

Ployhart

R. E.

MacKenzie

W. I.

Jr. (2015). Two waves of measurement do not a longitudinal study make. In Lance

C. E.

Vandenberg

R. 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 Computing https://www.R-project.org/

61.

Revelle

(2020). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (R package version = 2.0.8). Northwestern University, Evanston. https://CRAN.R project.org/package=psych

62.

RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R. http://www.rstudio.com/

63.

Scherpenzeel

A. C.

Das

(2010). “True” longitudinal and probability-based internet panels: Evidence from the Netherlands. In Das

Ester

Kaczmirek

(Eds.), Social and behavioral research and the internet: Advances in applied methods and research strategies (pp. 77–104). Taylor & Francis.

64.

Settle

J. E.

(2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.

65.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.

66.

Voelkel

J. G.

Stagnaro

Chu

Pink

Mernyk

Redekopp

Ghezae

Cashman

Adjodah

Allen

Allis

Baleria

Ballantyne

Van Bavel

J. J.

Blunden

Braley

Bryan

Celniker

Cikara

. . . Willer

(2023). Megastudy identifying effective interventions to strengthen Americans’ democratic attitudes. OSF Preprints. https://osf.io/y79u5/

67.

Wagner

(2021). Affective polarization in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies, 69, 102199.

68.

West

E. 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.

West

E. A.

Iyengar

(2022). Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization. Political Behavior, 44, 807–838.

70.

Westwood

S. J.

Iyengar

Walgrave

Leonisio

Miller

Strijbis

(2018). The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 333–354.

71.

Wickham

Seidel

(2020). scales: Scale functions for visualization (R package version 1.1.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scales

72.

Wickham

Averick

Bryan

Chang

D’Agostino McGowan

François

Grolemund

Hayes

Henry

Hester

Kuhn

Pedersen

T. L.

Miller

Bache

S. M.

Müller

Ooms

Robinson

Seidel

D. P.

. . . Yutani

(2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

73.

Wilke

C. O.

(2019). cowplot: Streamlined plot theme and plot annotations for “ggplot2” (R package version 1.0.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot

Supplementary Material

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.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB