It is no secret that political polarization has intensified in recent years in the U.S., with Republicans and Democrats becoming increasingly averse to members of the opposing party. It’s easy to tell this as a story about deepening divides in political views. But over the years, people’s political alliances have increasingly aligned with other, non-political traits. So how much do these social rifts speak to true political disagreements versus the many other ways that people in these political groups differ?
We conducted a survey experiment to identify which traits generate the most positive or negative feelings toward ordinary people in everyday situations. We showed 1,330 American survey respondents some basic information about two people whom they might meet in a social setting. In these simple profiles, each person’s political party, ideology, race, gender, religion, income, education, and geographic origin were generated randomly. The image below highlights what these profiles would have looked like to a participant in this study.
Example profiles in survey
A comparison table displaying characteristics of two individuals. Individual A: Democrat, Moderate, White, Northeast, High School Graduate, Income under 40K, Male, Jewish. Individual B: Republican, Conservative, Black, South, Post-graduate education, Income between 40-80K, Male, Atheist.
When we asked everyone which person they would prefer as a friend, neighbor, and son/daughter-in-law, political identity mattered more than all other social identities and demographics. People consistently preferred the person who shared their political views over the person who opposed them. Once we accounted for political views, most of the other traits just didn’t matter. Some of these preferences resulted from people’s tendency to like others who are like them. So, Democrats felt better about Democrats and Republicans felt better about Republicans. But these preferences were also partly based on actual dislike for the opposing group. Interestingly, though, not all dislike was equal. Democrats disliked Republicans more than Republicans disliked Democrats.
We were especially interested in the impact of “cross-cutting identities,” or profiles that do not fully conform to partisan stereotypes, such as Black Republicans, or evangelical Christian Democrats. Contrary to many assumptions, cross-cutting identities do not appear to dampen social polarization. People’s basic preference for someone with the same political affiliation as them applied even to seemingly “atypical” Democrats or Republicans. And people who themselves had cross-cutting identities were still more likely to prefer their political group over the other. Simple political identities seem to be a potent way people divide their social worlds.
Religion emerged as the other key trait that guided people’s choices, but religion’s influence also depended on the respondent’s political affiliation. Republicans viewed Jewish, Muslim, and atheist profiles more negatively than otherwise identical Christian profiles, and Democrats also viewed atheists more negatively than Christian profiles. Not only does religious identity shape political views, but political identity also influences social views on religion, and towards non-Christian religious minorities in particular.
Regarding how partisan respondents view racial identity, Democrats viewed Black profiles more favorably than Republicans did. But importantly, this was because Democrats were uniquely positively inclined to Black profiles, not that Republicans viewed Black profiles especially negatively. Interestingly, White participants did not view Black profiles any differently than non-White participants did. So, the racial prejudices that some might expect in these situations were superseded by people’s political allegiances.
Overall, our findings indicate that political partisanship is the primary driver of social divides in America today, outweighing race and ethnicity, class, level of education, geographic locale, and other demographic traits and identities that are so often subject to social biases. Many of these traits and identities are indeed intertwined with partisan identity, yet even when we untangle those overlapping identities, partisanship remains the strongest and most significant indicator of social preferences.
For Further Reading
Norman, J. M., & Green, B. (in press). Why can’t we be friends? Untangling conjoined polarization in America. Political Psychology. http://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13084
Norman, J. M. (2024). Other people's terrorism: ideology and the perceived legitimacy of political violence. Perspectives on Politics, 22(2), 445-462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722000688
Julie M. Norman is an Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at University College London (UCL). She has published widely on conflict, polarization, and political activism in domestic and international contexts.
Beniamino Green is a PhD candidate in Political Science and Statistics and Data Science at Yale University.