SpringerLink
Log in

‘American’ is the Eye of the Beholder: American Identity, Racial Sorting, and Affective Polarization among White Americans

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article has been updated

Abstract

White Americans are more affectively polarized today than at any point since at least the 1870s—and the trend shows no sign of abating any time soon. Recent work using the Common In-group Identity Model (CIIM) suggests that appealing to a super-ordinate identity—in this case, American national identity—holds the potential of bridging the social distance between partisans (Levendusky, 2018). However, CIIM assumes that the normative content—i.e. the norms and stereotypes—that people associate with being an American are the same across subordinate groups. Using the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies cross-sectional surveys, as well as the 2016–2020 ANES panel survey, we demonstrate three key findings. First, White Democrats and White Republicans have systematically different ideas about what attributes are essential to being a member of the national community. Second, the association between partisanship and these competing conceptions of American identity among White Americans has gotten stronger during the Trump Era, largely because of Democrats adopting a more racially inclusive conception of American identity. Lastly, appeals to American identity only dampen out-partisan animosity when the demographic composition of the opposing party matches their racialized conception of American identity. When there is a mismatch between people’s racialized conception of American identity and the composition of the opposition party, American identity is associated with higher levels of partisan hostility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Replication data for this paper can be found at the Political Behavior dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RO5BLP.

Change history

  • 14 December 2022

    The original article has been corrected to update abstract.

Notes

  1. The standard measure of patriotism in the American National Election Study asks respondents, “how good/bad does R feel to see the American flag.” Conversely, the standard measure of nationalism asks respondents how much they agree with the following statement: “The world would be a better place if people from other countries were more like Americans.” Because these measures are meant to capture qualitatively different concepts, we avoid them in our analysis.

References

  • Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (2020). Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 117(37), 22752–22759.

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Barwick, C., & Dawkins, R. (2020). Public perceptions of state court impartiality and court legitimacy in an era of partisan politics. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 20(1), 54–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawn, K., Cohen, M., Karol, D., Masket, S., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign, Berelson, Lazarsfeld. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Mariner Books.

  • Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. Prejudice, Discrimination and Conflict, 20(3), 291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (2020). Most Democrats who are looking for a relationship would not consider dating a Trump voter. Pew Research Center.

  • Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2018). Political competition, partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral Democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. M., & Pérez, E. O. (2016). Race and nation: How racial hierarchy shapes national attachments. Political Psychology, 37(4), 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., Wong, C., & Duff, B. (2001). The meaning of American national identity: Patterns of ethnic conflict and consensus. In Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction. Rutgers series on self and social identity (Vol. 3, pp. 71–100). Oxford University Press.

  • Dach-Gruschow, K., & Hong, Y. (2006). The racial divide in response to the aftermath of Katrina: A boundary condition for common ingroup identity model. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6(1), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, C., Kiley, J., & Asheer, N. (2020). In changing U.S. electorate, race and education remain stark dividing lines. Pew Research Center.

  • Doherty, C., Kiley, J., & Jameson, B. (2016). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016. Pew Research Center.

  • Doucerain, M. M., Amiot, C. E., Thomas, E. F., & Louis, W. R. (2018). What it means to be American: Identity inclusiveness/exclusiveness and support for policies about Muslims among U.S.-born Whites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 18(1), 224–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djupe, PA., Neiheisel, JR., & Sokhey, AE. (2018). Reconsidering the role of politics in leaving religion: The importance of affiliation. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, J., Alduncin, A., Krewson, C., Sieja, J. A., & Uscinski, J. E. (2017). The effect of conspiratorial thinking and motivated reasoning on belief in election fraud. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 933–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, PJ. (2020). Identity as dependent variable: How Americans shift their identitis to align with their politics. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 699–716.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • de Figueiredo, RJP., & Elkins, Z. (2003). Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 171–188 https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, K. N., & Bankert, A. (2018). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M. H., & Svolik, M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 797–832). Wiley.

  • Huber, G. A., & Malhotra, N. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jardina, A. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology. Cambridge University Press.

  • Jacobs, CM., Theiss-Morse, E. (2013). Belonging In a “Christian Nation”: The Explicit and Implicit Associations between Religion and National Group Membership. Politics and Religion, 6(2), 373–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048312000697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klar, S. (2018). When common identities decrease trust: An experimental study of partisan women. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 610–622.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Ryan JB. (2022). Who Are Leaners? How True Independents Differ from the Weakest Partisans and Why It Matters. The Forum, 20(1), 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013). The dating preferences of Liberals and Conservatives. Political Behavior, 35(3), 519–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How Liberals became Democrats and Conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.

  • Levendusky, M. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016a). (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, M., & Malhotra, N. (2016b). Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes? Political Communication, 33(2), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2015). ‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2018). Losing common ground: Social sorting and polarization. The Forum, 16(1), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., & Levendusky, M. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S., & Lieberman, R. (2020). Four threats: The recurring crises of American democracy. New York: St. Martin's Press.

  • Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and Patriotism: National Identification and out-group projection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164740

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. (2008). Whiteness and the polarization of American politics. Political Research Quarterly, 61(4), 704–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, E. O., Deichert, M., & Engelhardt, A. M. (2019). E Pluribus Unum? How ethnic and national identity motivate individual reactions to a political ideal. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1420–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, J. E., Howat, A. J., Shafranek, R. M., & Busby, E. C. (2019). Pigeonholing partisans: Stereotypes of party supporters and partisan polarization. Political Behavior, 41(2), 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutchick, A. M., & Eccleston, C. P. (2010). Ironic effects of invoking common ingroup identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Kurzban, R. (2013). Toward an evolutionarily informed political psychology. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 205–236). OUP.

  • Smith, R. M. (1993). Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The multiple traditions in America. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 549–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. M., & King, D. (2021). White protectionism in America. Perspectives on Politics, 19(2), 460–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffens, M. C., Reese, G., Ehrke, F., & Jonas, K. J. (2017). When does activating diversity alleviate, when does it increase intergroup bias? An ingroup projection perspective. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0178738.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, L., & Kent Jennings, M. (2008). Of time and the development of partisan polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 619–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 77–100). Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesler, M. (2012). The return of old-fashioned racism to White Americans’ partisan preferences in the early Obama era. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 110–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who counts as an American? Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Transue, J. E. (2007). Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, SJ., & Peterson, E. (2022). The inseparability of race and partisanship in the United States. Political Behavior, 44(3), 1125–1147 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09648-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolak, J., & Dawkins, R. (2017). The roots of patriotism across political contexts. Political Psychology, 38(3), 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zingher, JN. (2018). Polarization, demographic change, and white flight from the Democratic Party. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 860–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jennifer Wolak, Julie Wronski, Adam Cayton, Carey Stapleton, and Corey Barwick for offering thoughtful and constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions helped make this paper significantly stronger during the review process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wellesley College, Wellesley, USA

    Ryan Dawkins

  2. Grinnell College, Grinnell, USA

    Abigail Hanson

Authors
  1. Ryan Dawkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abigail Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Dawkins.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dawkins, R., Hanson, A. ‘American’ is the Eye of the Beholder: American Identity, Racial Sorting, and Affective Polarization among White Americans. Polit Behav 46, 501–521 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09834-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09834-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation