‘ Who Do You Think You Are?’The Differential Effect of In-Party Threats and Reassurances on Affective Polarization

Evidence is mounting that several aspects of our online communication landscape have the potential to drive animosity between partisan groups. Existing research mostly attributes these effects to the power of digital media and partisan incivility to activate individual’s partisan identities, thus accentuating an “us” versus “them” mentality. Yet, it has so far failed to specify the conditions under which partisan commentary is the most likely to drive prejudice. In this paper, I tackle this question by investigating how exposure to online partisan criticism and partisan praise differentially impact affective polarization in an experimental setting. Drawing on intergroup threat theory, I demonstrate that not all forms of partisan commentary lead to prejudice: while exposure to threats to the in-party’s status (such as statements praising the opposition or attacking the in-party) significantly increases affective polarization, exposure to comments derogating the out-party and in-party accolades mostly do not. Furthermore, findings show that Democrats are more likely to react adversely to viewing comments praising Republican than vice-versa. Implications of these findings for the study of affective polarization are discussed.