Attitude Formation Based on Political Views: An Expectancy-Value Model of Interpersonal Likability in Politics

Abstract

How affective polarization in Western democracies results from the interplay of ideological differences and group identification remains unclear. To better understand these processes and address the call for falsifiable theories, we propose a formalized Expectancy-Value Model of Interpersonal Likability in Politics (EVIL-P). It argues that people (dis)like targets with (dis)similar political views (i.e., value), especially if these views are rare (i.e., expectancy). By reanalyzing data from the American National Election Studies (N = 38,868), the British Election Study (N = 24,522), and nine studies on ratings of societal groups that vary in political views (N = 6,587), we find support for EVIL-P. Expectancy and value interacted to predict people’s attitudes. Moreover, targets with moderate political views were liked most on average, and targets with more extreme political views had more extreme fans and haters. We discuss how EVIL-P contributes to research on affective polarization and helps testing related phenomena.

Keywords

attitudes political views affective polarization expectancy-value model agent-based model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Algara

Zur

(2023). The Downsian roots of affective polarization. Electoral Studies, 82, Article 102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102581

Alves

(2018). Sharing rare attitudes attracts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(8), 1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218766861

Alves

Uğurlar

Unkelbach

(2022). Typical is trustworthy—Evidence for a generalized heuristic. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211031722

American National Election Studies. (2021). ANES time series cumulative data file [dataset and documentation]. November 18, 2021 version. www.electionstudies.org

Bäck

Carroll

Renström

Ryan

(2023). Elite communication and affective polarization among voters. Electoral Studies, 84, Article 102639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102639

Bail

C. A.

Argyle

L. P.

Brown

T. W.

Bumpus

J. P.

Chen

Hunzaker

M. B. F.

Lee

Mann

Merhout

Volfovsky

(2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115

Balinhas

(2023). Bringing critical social psychology to the study of political polarization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(1), Article e12721. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12721

Balinhas

(2024). Examining the territorial dimension as a source of affective polarization in the Spanish multinational democracy: A longitudinal analysis. Ethnopolitics, 1–27. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/17449057.2024.2400637?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Boxell

Gentzkow

Shapiro

J. M.

(2024). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(2), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01160

10.

Bramson

Grim

Singer

D. J.

Berger

W. J.

Sack

Fisher

Flocken

Holman

(2017). Understanding polarization: Meanings, measures, and model evaluation. Philosophy of Science, 84(1), 115–159. https://doi.org/10.1086/688938

11.

Brandt

M. J.

Crawford

J. T.

(2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.002

12.

Brandt

M. J.

Sleegers

W. W. A.

(2021). Evaluating belief system networks as a theory of political belief system dynamics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868321993751

13.

Broockman

D. E.

Kalla

J. L.

Westwood

S. J.

(2023). Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. American Journal of Political Science, 67(3), 808–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12719

14.

Burden

B. C.

(2004). Candidate positioning in US congressional elections. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340400002X

15.

Byrne

(1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044721

16.

Carlson

T. N.

Hill

S. J.

(2022). Experimental measurement of misperception in political beliefs. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.2

17.

Chen

M. K.

Rohla

(2018). The effect of partisanship and political advertising on close family ties. Science, 360(6392), 1020–1024. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1433

18.

Clarke

H. D.

Sanders

Stewart

M. C.

Whiteley

P. F.

(2003). British general election study, 2001; cross-section survey [Dataset]. UK Data Archive.

19.

Clarke

H. D.

Sanders

Stewart

M. C.

Whiteley

P. F.

(2006). British Election Study, 2005: Face-to-face survey [Dataset]. UK Data Archive.

20.

Dalege

Borsboom

van Harreveld

Waldorp

L. J.

van der Maas

H. L. J.

(2017). Network structure explains the impact of attitudes on voting decisions. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 4909. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05048-y

21.

Dias

Lelkes

(2022). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science, 66(3), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628

22.

Downs

(1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.

23.

Enders

A. M.

Armaly

M. T.

(2019). The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior, 41(3), 815–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2

24.

Erisen

(2012). The effect of social networks on the quality of political thinking. Political Psychology, 33(6), 839–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00906.x

25.

Fieldhouse

Green

Evans

Mellon

Prosser

Bailey

Griffiths

Perrett

(2025). 2024 BES post-election random probability survey (version 1.0.0) [Dataset]. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/2024-british-election-study-post-election-random-probability-survey-2/

26.

Fieldhouse

Green

Evans

Prosser

De Geus

Bailey

Schmitt

Van Der Eijk

Mellon

(2022). British Election Study, 2019: Post-election random probability survey (version 1st ed.) [Dataset]. UK Data Service. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8875-1

27.

Fieldhouse

Green

Evans

Schmitt

Van Der Eijk

Mellon

Prosser

(2019a). British Election Study, 2015: Face-to-face post-election survey (version 1st ed.) [Dataset]. UK Data Service. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7972-1

28.

Fieldhouse

Green

Evans

Schmitt

Van Der Eijk

Mellon

Prosser

(2019b). British Election Study, 2017: Face-to-face post-election survey (version 1st ed.) [Dataset]. UK Data Service. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8418-1

29.

Fiorina

M. P.

Abrams

S. J.

(2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836

30.

Fishbein

(1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302

31.

Fiske

S. T.

(1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889

32.

Galesic

Olsson

Dalege

Van Der Does

Stein

D. L.

(2021). Integrating social and cognitive aspects of belief dynamics: Towards a unifying framework. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(176), 20200857. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2020.0857

33.

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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700059X

34.

Gidron

Adams

Horne

(2023). Who dislikes whom? Affective polarization between pairs of parties in western democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000394

35.

Gift

(2015). Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior, 37(3), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9286-0

36.

Goldenberg

Abruzzo

J. M.

Huang

Schöne

Bailey

Willer

Halperin

Gross

J. J.

(2022). Homophily and acrophily as drivers of political segregation. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01474-9

37.

Heath

Jowell

Curtice

J. K.

Norris

(1999). British general election study, 1997; Cross-section survey [Dataset]. UK Data Archive.

38.

Huddy

Mason

Aarøe

(2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604

39.

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(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

40.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038

41.

Jost

J. T.

Baldassarri

D. S.

Druckman

J. N.

(2022). Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(10), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5

42.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

43.

Kawecki

(2022). End of consensus? Ideology, partisan identity, and affective polarization in Finland 2003–2019. Scandinavian Political Studies, 45(4), 478–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12238

44.

Knöchelmann

Cohrs

J. C.

(2025). Effects of intellectual humility in the context of affective polarization: Approaching and avoiding others in controversial political discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 129(1), 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000462

45.

Koch

Dorrough

Glöckner

Imhoff

(2020). The ABC of society: Perceived similarity in agency/socioeconomic success and conservative-progressive beliefs increases intergroup cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, Article 103996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103996

46.

Koch

Imhoff

Dotsch

Unkelbach

Alves

(2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 675–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046

47.

Koch

Imhoff

Unkelbach

Nicolas

Fiske

Terache

Carrier

Yzerbyt

(2020). Groups’ warmth is a personal matter: Understanding consensus on stereotype dimensions reconciles adversarial models of social evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, Article 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103995

48.

Lehmann

Franzmann

Al-Gaddooa

Burst

Ivanusch

Regel

Riethmüller

Volkens

Weßels

Zehnter

(2025). The Manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR) (version 2025a) [Dataset]. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2025a

49.

Levendusky

(2018). When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(3), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy036

50.

Levendusky

Malhotra

(2016). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1038455

51.

Markus

G. B.

(1982). Political attitudes during an election year: A report on the 1980 NES panel study. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 538–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400188392

52.

Mason

(2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001

53.

Michelitch

(2015). Does electoral competition exacerbate interethnic or interpartisan economic discrimination? Evidence from a field experiment in market price bargaining. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000628

54.

Muthukrishna

Henrich

(2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1

55.

Orr

L. V.

Fowler

Huber

G. A.

(2023). Is affective polarization driven by identity, loyalty, or substance? American Journal of Political Science, 67(4), 948–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12796

56.

Orr

L. V.

Huber

G. A.

(2020). The policy basis of measured partisan animosity in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12498

57.

Qiu

Phang

(2020). Agent-based modeling in political decision making. In Qiu

Phang

(Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.913

58.

R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

59.

Rabinowitz

Macdonald

S. E.

(1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956436

60.

Reiljan

(2020). “Fear and loathing across party lines” (also) in Europe: Affective polarisation in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research, 59(2), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12351

61.

Reiljan

Ryan

(2021). Ideological tripolarization, partisan tribalism and institutional trust: The foundations of affective polarization in the Swedish multiparty system. Scandinavian Political Studies, 44(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12194

62.

Roberts

Koch

(2022). With great power comes great moral volatility: People render more extreme moral judgments as others’ power increases. Manuscript in preparation.

63.

Rogowski

J. C.

Sutherland

J. L.

(2016). How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior, 38(2), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7

64.

Röllicke

(2023). Polarisation, identity and affect—Conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems. Electoral Studies, 85, Article 102655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102655

65.

Rothers

(2025). The poles in polarization: Social categorization and affective polarization in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies, 95, Article 102908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2025.102908

66.

Satherley

Sibley

C. G.

Osborne

(2020). Identity, ideology, and personality: Examining moderators of affective polarization in New Zealand. Journal of Research in Personality, 87, Article 103961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103961

67.

Schwalbe

M. C.

Cohen

G. L.

Ross

L. D.

(2020). The objectivity illusion and voter polarization in the 2016 presidential election. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(35), 21218–21229. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912301117

68.

Smaldino

P. E.

(2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution. Princeton University Press.

69.

Sofer

Dotsch

Wigboldus

D. H. J.

Todorov

(2015). What is typical is good: The influence of face typicality on perceived trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 26(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614554955

70.

Stadelmann

Portmann

Eichenberger

(2012). Evaluating the median voter model’s explanatory power. Economics Letters, 114(3), 312–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.10.015

71.

Titelman

Lauderdale

B. E.

(2023). Can citizens guess how other citizens voted based on demographic characteristics? Political Science Research and Methods, 11(2), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.53

72.

Torcal

Harteveld

(Eds.). (2025). Handbook of affective polarization. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035310609

73.

Tucker

Guess

Barbera

Vaccari

Siegel

Sanovich

Stukal

Nyhan

(2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139

74.

Walgrave

Jansen

Sevenans

Soontjens

Pilet

J.-B.

Brack

Varone

Helfer

Vliegenthart

Van Der Meer

Breunig

Bailer

Sheffer

Loewen

P. J.

(2023). Inaccurate politicians: Elected representatives’ estimations of public opinion in four countries. The Journal of Politics, 85(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/722042

75.

Webster

S. W.

Abramowitz

A. I.

(2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17703132

76.

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(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12228

77.

Wilensky

(1999). NetLogo (version 6.1.1) [Computer software]. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

78.

Woitzel

Koch

(2023). Ideological prejudice is stronger in ideological extremists (vs. Moderates). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(8), 1685–1705. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221135083

79.

Woitzel

Koch

(2025). Ideological favoritism and in-group favoritism: A double dissociation of U.S. progressives and conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251345519

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

1.37 MB