Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Demonization of the partisan out-group is commonly identified as a source of partisan polarization. Support for this claim can be found in the scholarly literature, which links exposure to elite incivility to affective polarization (Mutz 2015; Skytte 2020). Yet another set of findings suggests we should be skeptical of the claim that uncivil elite rhetoric intensifies the gap in feelings for in- and out-group, demonstrating that in-elite incivility can depolarize partisans (Costa 2020; Druckman et al. 2018). How do we reconcile these conflicting claims in the literature? I argue that whether in-elite political incivility aggravates or lessens affective polarization depends on two factors: strength of partisan identity and the presence of threat to group status. I evaluate whether (H1) the effect of in-elite political incivility on affective polarization is moderated by strength of partisan identity, leveraging the Huddy et al. (2015) multi-item partisan strength scale. Additionally, I evaluate whether (H2) in-elite political incivility aggravates affective polarization when the partisan out-group threatens in-group status. To test these claims, I conducted a 2 (no threat to group status/threat to group status) x 2 (in-elite civil negativity/in-elite incivility) survey experiment with a control group, via TESS (NORC) on a sample of partisan identifiers (n=2,250) in October 2021.