Intraparty and Interparty Political Disagreement as Predictors of Affective Polarization and Willingness to Engage in Interparty Contact: The Moderating Role of Political Difference Management Styles
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2025
Intraparty and Interparty Political Disagreement as Predictors of Affective Polarization and Willingness to Engage in Interparty Contact: The Moderating Role of Political Difference Management Styles
Interpersonal political discussion is a normatively valued practice in a democracy, shaping polarizing attitudes and influencing future contact intentions in divided political landscapes. Applying social identity, intergroup contact, and conflict management styles theories, in this article, we investigate the associations between political disagreement with in-party and out-party members, affective polarization, and willingness to engage in interparty contact. Additionally, we examine how these associations are contingent upon individuals’ styles for managing political disagreement. Using cross-sectional survey data (N = 732), we found that better quality of disagreement with out-party members and more frequent disagreement with in-party members are related to improved intergroup attitudes. Furthermore, these relationships vary depending on the competing disagreement management style.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
AmsalemE.MerkleyE.LoewenP. J. (2022). Does talking to the other side reduce inter-party hostility? Evidence from three studies. Political Communication, 39(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1955056
3.
BerelsonB. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 16(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1086/266397
4.
BerryJ. W.HouF. (2019). Multiple belongings and psychological well-being among immigrants and the second generation in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 51(3), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000130
5.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). Academic Press.
6.
CaoX. (2020). Revisiting the democratic implications of political discussion disagreement: With whom one disagrees matters. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1751372
7.
ConoverP. J.MillerP. R. (2018). Taking everyday political talk seriously. In BächtigerA.DryzekJ. S.MansbridgeJ.WarrenM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 378–391). Oxford University Press.
8.
CookeM. A. (1978). A pair of instruments for measuring student attitudes toward bearers of the target culture. Foreign Language Annals, 11(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1978.tb00024.x
9.
De ConinckD.Rodríguez-de-DiosI.d’HaenensL. (2021). The contact hypothesis during the European refugee crisis: Relating quality and quantity of (in)direct intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(6), 881–901. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220929394
10.
De DreuC. K. W.EversA.BeersmaB.KluwerE. S.NautaA. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.107
11.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003
12.
EssesV. M.DovidioJ. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1202–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812006
13.
GarrettR. K.GvirsmanS. D.JohnsonB. K.TsfatiY.NeoR.DalA. (2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
14.
GlasfordD. E.DovidioJ. F. (2011). E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group members’ motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1021–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.021
15.
GroenendykE.SancesM. W.ZhirkovK. (2020). Intraparty polarization in American politics. The Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1616–1620. https://doi.org/10.1086/708780
16.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2009). Why deliberative democracy?Princeton University Press.
17.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
18.
HopmannD. N.BjarnøeC.WonnebergerA. (2020). Responding to interpersonal political disagreement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz011
ImhoffR.BilewiczM.ErbH. P. (2012). Collective regret versus collective guilt: Different emotional reactions to historical atrocities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(6), 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1886
21.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
22.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
23.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
JohnstonB. M.GlasfordD. E. (2018). Intergroup contact and helping: How quality contact and empathy shape outgroup helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(8), 1185–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217711770
26.
KauffM.BenedaM.PaoliniS.BilewiczM.KotzurP.O’DonnellA. W.StevensonC.WagnerU.ChristO. (2021). How do we get people into contact? Predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking. The Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12398
27.
KlofstadC. A.SokheyA. E.McClurgS. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00620.x
28.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.OuwerkerkJ. W.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
29.
LevinS.SidaniusJ. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation?Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00138
30.
LinM. C.HaridakisP.ZhangY. B. (2020). Political party identification and intergroup attitudes: Exploring the effects of mediated and direct contact with the opposing party during a presidential campaign. Journal of International Communication, 14, 2446–2463.
31.
LinvilleP. W.FischerG. W.SaloveyP. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165
32.
MarquesJ. M.YzerbytV. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter-and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180308
33.
MatthesJ.KnollJ.ValenzuelaS.HopmannD. N.Von SikorskiC. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication, 36(4), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638
34.
McIntyreK.PaoliniS.HewstoneM. (2016). Changing people’s views of outgroups through individual-to-group generalisation: Meta-analytic reviews and theoretical considerations. European Review of Social Psychology, 27(1), 63–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2016.1201893
35.
MillerP. R.ConoverP. J. (2015). Why partisan warriors don’t listen: The gendered dynamics of intergroup anxiety and partisan conflict. Politics Groups and Identities, 3(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2014.992795
36.
MoreyA. C.EvelandW. P. (2016). Measures of political talk frequency: Assessing reliability and meaning. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2015.1118448
37.
MoreyA. C.EvelandW. P.HutchensM. J. (2012). The “who” matters: Types of interpersonal relationships and avoidance of political disagreement. Political Communication, 29(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.641070
38.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088437
39.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
40.
PackerD. J. (2008). On being both with us and against us: A normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307309606
41.
PackerD. J. (2014). On not airing our dirty laundry: Intergroup contexts suppress ingroup criticism among strongly identified group members. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12017
42.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.HewstoneM.NeumannD. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(12), e12422. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12422
43.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM.HusnuS.JoyceN.HewstoneM. (2014). Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 548–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2029
44.
PaoliniS.McIntyreK. (2019). Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to-group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317753504
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
47.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
PriceV.CappellaJ. N.NirL. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506
ShimC.ZhangY. B.HarwoodJ. (2012). Direct and mediated intercultural contact: Koreans’ attitudes toward US Americans. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(3), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2012.670715
53.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 33, pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.
54.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.
55.
TestaP. F.HibbingM. V.RitchieM. (2014). Orientations toward conflict and the conditional effects of political disagreement. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 770–785. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381614000255
56.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
WebsterS. W.AbramowitzA. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17703132
59.
WeeksB. E.LaneD. S.KimD. H.LeeS. S.KwakN. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199
60.
WojcieszakM.WarnerB. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406
ZhangY. B.HarwoodJ.PiercyC.LiuN.RubleR. (2023). Accommodation, social attraction, and intergroup attitudes on social media: The effects of outgroup self-presentation and ingroup accommodation. Language Sciences, 99, 101563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101563
63.
ZhangY. B.LiS.HarwoodJ. (2021). Grandparent–grandchild communication and attitudes toward older adults: Relational solidarity and shared family identity in China. Journal of International Communication, 15, 2987–3005.
