Political Polarization
Here’s one reason why disdain for the other party is on the rise
Compared to partisan men, women partisans express colder feelings towards the opposing party.
By Heather L Ondercin and Mary-Kate Lizotte
There is not much love lost between Democrats and Republicans in U.S. politics. Most partisans likely wanted their party’s candidate to win the 2020 presidential election, but they definitely did not want the other party to win. In the Vote Cast the exit poll run by the Associated Press, when asked if their vote for president was for a candidate or against his opponent, 47% of respondents reported they were voting against the opponent. Affective polarization — the feelings of dislike we have towards the other party — has grown significantly over the past several decades.
Our research provides insight into affective polarization by examining sub-groups in the electorate, specifically men and women. In “You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling: How Gender Shapes Affective Polarization,” we answer three questions: 1) are men and women equally affectively polarized, 2) do the same factors contribute to men’s and women’s affective polarization, and 3) how have these differences evolved over time.
Differences in Men’s and Women’s Affective Polarization
Men’s and women’s political behavior diverges when they cast their ballots, identify with the parties, identify ideologically, and express their opinions on a variety of issues. We were interested in how these sex-based differences in partisanship, ideology, and issues translate into differences outside of the voting booth. Partisanship, ideology, and issue are the main forces behind affective polarization, we wanted to know if men and women were similarly affectively polarized.
As we suspected, there are also small but significant differences in men’s and women’s affective polarization. Women’s average level of affective polarization was 34-points and men’s average level of affective polarization was 32-points between 1980–2016.[1] There is a small but significant difference in men’s and women’s affective polarization.
Sources of Affective Polarization for Men and Women
We uncover two different processes that could produce the gender gap in affective polarization. First, men and women could differ on factors that contribute to affective polarization. Second, the effect of these factors could be different for men and women.
We find that partisan strength, ideological strength, and abortion attitude strength significantly influence an individual’s polarization. Moreover, men and women differ along these factors. Women hold stronger partisan attachments and strong abortion attitudes, increasing women’s affective polarization compared to men. Interestingly, men hold stronger ideological identities, increasing men’s affective polarization in comparison to women. Not only are women stronger partisans than men, but partisan strength has a larger influence on women’s affective polarization compared to men.
Gender Differences in Polarization Overtime
To further understand differences in men’s and women’s affective polarization, we subdivided our data into three different periods: (1) 1980–1988, (2) 1990–1999, and (3) 2000–2016. These periods represent distinct political contexts that may shape gender differences in affective polarization. The first period, 1980–1988, represents the emergence of gender differences in voting and partisanship, but with low elite polarization. The second period, 1990–1999, is defined by increasing elite polarization, which we expect to increase affective polarization and differences between women’s and men’s affective polarization. The third period, 2000–2016, represents a political atmosphere dominated by elite polarization and the importance of partisanship. In this final period, we expect to find the highest levels of affective polarization and the largest differences between women and men.
We found significant differences between men’s and women’s affective polarization in all three periods. The smallest differences were observed in the first period. Women’s affective polarization did not change between the 1st and 2nd periods, while men’s level of affective polarization decreased. This decrease created a slightly larger gender gap in affective polarization in the 2nd period. Between 2000–2016, we observe increases in both men’s and women’s polarization and a slight widening of gender differences.
Differences between men and women in partisan strength, ideological strength, and abortion strength continue to partially explain gender differences in affective polarization. Additionally, strength in partisanship has a larger effect on women’s affective polarization in each of these periods.
The political context influences the effects of ideological strength, strength in social welfare attitudes, and strength in abortion attitudes for men and women. During the first period, the strength in abortion attitudes had a slightly larger influence on men’s affective polarization than women. Interestingly, in the second and third periods, strength in abortion attitudes change to have a larger effect on women’s affective polarization. Strength in ideology and social welfare attitude strength have a larger impact on men’s affective polarization between 1990–1996.
What we Learned
Our findings raise interesting questions on the relationship between sex and gender.
Sex is often used as a proxy measure for gender with fair success. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory labels traits such as compassion, sympathy, soft-spoken, and understanding of one’s needs as feminine while classifying assertiveness, defending one’s beliefs, and being willing to take a stand and competitiveness as masculine traits. Based on these traits, one might expect women to be less likely to express hostile feelings towards out-groups than men. Additionally, women and men are also stereotyped with these traits. Given women’s higher levels of affective polarization, our findings raise questions about how gender and sex may influence partisan attitudes differently. Further research with more nuanced measures of gender is necessary to fully understand how closely sex and gender overlap and how gender shapes affective polarization.
[1] Affective polarization is calculated by subtracting out-party warmth from in-party warmth. Warmth towards in- and out-parties was measured on feeling thermometers ranging from 0 to 99. Our measure of affective polarization has the potential to range from -99 to 99 — positive values indicating that the respondent feels more warmly towards in-party than the out-party.
