Shift in polarization changes motivations for political participation
The American National Election Studies (ANES) has surveyed the American electorate every U.S. presidential election year since 1948, collecting valuable time series data relating to citizens' social backgrounds, political predispositions, evaluations of candidates' traits, amongst many other topics. Shanto Iyengar, Stanford political scientist and co-PI of the ANES, used the ANES time series data to examine trends in political polarization over time.
While the increased polarization of our current political landscape is well-established, Iyengar and his co-author Masha Krupenkin, assistant professor of political science at Boston College, sought to understand this heightened partisanship's effect on the American electorate's attitude and behaviors.
Iyengar and Krupenkin produced three main findings. First, after the divisive 2016 election, partisanship amongst voters remains as high as ever, with no signs of diminishing. Second, since 1980 and accelerating since 2000, there has been an increase in affective polarization, characterized by an increased symmetry between voters' in-party and out-party views; in other words, their approval for their own party is matched by a growing disapproval for the other major party.
Finally, the most salient conclusion the study authors reach is that it is outgroup animus, rather than ingroup favoritism, that most motivates citizens to participate in the political process, whether it be through voting, campaign contributions, or more active measures such as canvassing. Iyengar and Krupenkin note this can mean that running critical ads and attacking one's opponent can prove more important than a candidate's own platform and qualifications when running a campaign. Furthermore, voters may be less inclined to hold their own candidates accountable for their mistakes or for failing to live up to election promises, as their primary goal becomes to keep their opponents out of office.