Editing Political polarization (section)

=== Mass polarization ===
Mass polarization, or popular polarization, occurs when an electorate's attitudes towards political issues, policies, celebrated figures, or other citizens are neatly divided along party lines.<ref name="mccarty-06" /><ref name="layman-06" /><ref name="carmines-12" /><ref name="claassen-08">{{cite journal|last=Claassen|first=R.L.|author2=Highton, B.|date=9 September 2008|title=Policy Polarization among Party Elites and the Significance of Political Awareness in the Mass Public|journal=Political Research Quarterly|volume=62|issue=3|pages=538–551|doi=10.1177/1065912908322415|s2cid=154392221}}</ref> At the extreme, each camp questions the moral legitimacy of the other, viewing the opposing camp and its policies as an existential threat to their way of life or the nation as a whole.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-06-22|title=Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016|url=https://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/|access-date=2019-10-26|website=Pew Research Center for the People and the Press}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=García-Guadilla|first1=María Pilar|last2=Mallen|first2=Ana|date=2019-01-01|title=Polarization, Participatory Democracy, and Democratic Erosion in Venezuela's Twenty-First Century Socialism|journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|volume=681|issue=1|pages=62–77|doi=10.1177/0002716218817733|issn=0002-7162|doi-access=free|s2cid=149617060}}</ref>

There are multiple types or measures of mass polarization. ''Ideological polarization'' refers to the extent to which the electorate has divergent beliefs on ideological issues (e.g., abortion or affirmative action) or beliefs that are consistently conservative or liberal across a range of issues (e.g., having a conservative position on both abortion and affirmative action even if those positions are not "extreme").<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Abramowitz|first1=Alan I.|last2=Saunders|first2=Kyle L.|date=2008|title=Is Polarization a Myth?|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381608080493|journal=The Journal of Politics|volume=70|issue=2|pages=542–555|doi=10.1017/s0022381608080493|jstor=10.1017/s0022381608080493|s2cid=44020272|issn=0022-3816|url-access=subscription}}</ref> ''[[Partisan sorting]]'' refers to the extent to which the electorate "sorts" or identifies with a party based on their ideological, racial, religious, gender, or other demographic characteristics.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mason|first=Lilliana|date=2015|title="I Disrespectfully Agree": The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=59|issue=1|pages=128–145|doi=10.1111/ajps.12089|jstor=24363600|issn=0092-5853|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mason|first1=Lilliana|last2=Wronski|first2=Julie|date=2018|title=One Tribe to Bind Them All: How Our Social Group Attachments Strengthen Partisanship|journal=Political Psychology|language=en|volume=39|issue=S1|pages=257–277|doi=10.1111/pops.12485|issn=1467-9221|doi-access=free}}</ref> ''Affective polarization'' refers to the extent to which the electorate "dislikes" or "distrusts" those from other parties.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Iyengar|first1=Shanto|last2=Lelkes|first2=Yphtach|last3=Levendusky|first3=Matthew|last4=Malhotra|first4=Neil|last5=Westwood|first5=Sean J.|date=2019-05-11|title=The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|language=en|volume=22|issue=1|pages=129–146|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034|issn=1094-2939|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Political scientists who study mass polarization generally rely on data from [[opinion polls]] and election surveys. They look for trends in respondents' opinions on a given issue, their voting history, and their political ideology (conservative, liberal, moderate, etc.), and they try to relate those trends to respondents' party identification and other potentially polarizing factors (like geographic location or income bracket).<ref name="dimaggio-96" /><ref name="hetherington-09" /> Political scientists typically limit their inquiry to issues and questions that have been constant over time, in order to compare the present day to what the political climate has historically been.<ref name="claassen-08" /> Some of recent studies also use decision-making games to measure the extent to which ingroup members discriminate outgroup members relative to their group members.<ref name="doi.org" />

Recent academic work suggests that intolerance at the ideological extremes can lead to polarization with opinions more polarized than identities, intolerance among moderates improves cohesion.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Genicot |first1=Garance |year=2022 |title=Tolerance and Compromise in Social Networks |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/717041 |journal=Journal of Political Economy |volume=130 |pages=94–120 |doi=10.1086/717041 |s2cid=242818458 |access-date=2021-01-29|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Some political scientists argue that polarization requires divergence on a broad range of issues,<ref name="dimaggio-96" /><ref name="fiorina-08" /> while others argue that only a few issues are required.<ref name="baldassarri-08" /><ref name="abramowitz-08" /><ref name="bafumi-09" /> [[File:ANES_Affective_Polarization_through_2020.jpg|thumb|330x330px|Affective polarization in the U.S. (1976-2020)<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior |url=https://electionstudies.org/data-tools/anes-guide/anes-guide.html?chart=affective_polarization_parties |access-date=2024-09-16 |website=electionstudies.org |publisher=American National Election Studies}}</ref>]]