ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

In person icon Affective Depolarisation: Combining Theory and Practice

Conflict Resolution
Political Violence
Policy
Institutions

P001

Kirk Hawkins

Central European University

Laura Gamboa

University of Notre Dame

Building: Jinonice Campus, Floor: 4, Room: C523
Tuesday 09:00 – Thursday 15:00 (20/05/2025 – 22/05/2025)
Research on affective polarisation has yielded important insights concerning its measurement and causes. However, scholars are only beginning to study the reverse question: how depolarisation occurs, or how affective polarisation is mitigated or reversed. This inquiry has important scientific but also policy implications. Since 2016 governments and non-profit organizations have invested heavily in depolarisation programmes, often with little impact assessment or scientific analysis. At the same time, political scientists studying affective polarisation have not always field-tested ideas or explored policy implications. The workshop welcomes research that fills this gap and helps develop a framework for the scientific study of depolarisation.
The study of affective polarisation — the negative emotions that opposing political groups feel for each other, or more broadly, the overlapping, pernicious divides that accompany this affect — has grown significantly in recent years, expanding from initial work in the United States to studies in Europe and Latin America. This research has generated important findings concerning the causes and consequences of affective polarisation, its uneven spread, and its impact on democracy and political conflict. Despite a wealth of literature on what causes affective polarisation, we know little about how to mitigate or reduce it, since the drivers of affective polarisation do not immediately reveal mechanisms to address it (eg if ideological divides contribute to polarisation, does this mean we should eliminate our programmatic disagreements?). Yet, it is crucial we learn how to depolarise. With or (more often) without scientific backing, governments and private donors have invested significant funds into depolarisation programs, especially since the events of 2016, raising the policy stakes in addressing this topic. The current moment provides an opportunity for social scientists to take stock of our knowledge and to develop a framework for analysing and assessing depolarisation. There is a critical mass in the making: NGOs and public agencies are starting to conduct impact evaluations of depolarisation; a few scientifically oriented studies are now being published; and a number of NGOs have indicated their willingness to collaborate with social scientists.
Baron, Hannah, Robert Blair, Donghyun Danny Choi, Laura Gamboa, Jessica Gottlieb, Amanda Lea Robinson, Steven Rosenzweig, Megan Turnbull, and Emily A. West. 2021. “Couples Therapy for a Divided America: Assessing the Effects of Reciprocal Group Reflection on Partisan Polarization.” doi:10.31219/osf.io/3x7z8. Bishop, Bill. 2009. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. Mariner Books. Bougher, Lori D. 2017. “The Correlates of Discord: Identity, Issue Alignment, and Political Hostility in Polarized America.” Political Behavior 39(3): 731–62. Brown, Jacob R., and Ryan D. Enos. 2021. “The Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million Voters.” Nature Human Behaviour 5(8): 998–1008. Cramer, Katherine J. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chryssogelos, Angelos, Eliza Tanner Hawkins, Kirk A Hawkins, Levente Littvay, and Nina Wiesehomeier, eds. 2024. The Ideational Approach to Populism, Vol. II: Consequences and Mitigation. Extremism and Democracy. Abingdon: Routledge. Fishkin, James, Alice Siu, Larry Diamond, and Norman Bradburn. 2021. “Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on ‘America in One Room.’” American Political Science Review115(4): 1464–81. Gidron, Noam, James Adams, and Will Horne. 2020. American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graham, Matthew H., and Milan W. Svolik. 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. Harteveld, Eelco. 2021. “Fragmented Foes: Affective Polarization in the Multiparty Context of the Netherlands.” Electoral Studies 71 (June):102332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102332. Harteveld, Eelco, Philipp Mendoza, and Matthijs Rooduijn. 2022. “Affective Polarization and the Populist Radical Right: Creating the Hating?” Government and Opposition 57 (4): 703–27. Hetherington, Marc J., and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2015. Why Washington Won’t Work Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. University of Chicago Press. Hernández, Enrique, Eva Anduiza, and Guillem Rico. 2021. “Affective Polarization and the Salience of Elections.” Electoral Studies 69 (February):102203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102203. Hochschild, Arlie Russel. 2018. Strangers in Their Own Land. The New Press. Hocker, Joyce L, and William W Wilmont. 2021. Interpersonal Conflict. https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/interpersonal-conflict-hocker-berry/M9781260836950.html. Huddy, Leonie, and Omer Yair. 2021. “Reducing Affective Polarization: Warm Group Relations or Policy Compromise?” Political Psychology 42(2): 291–309. Iyengar, Shanto, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky, Neil Malhotra, and Sean J. Westwood. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22(1): 129–46. Lelkes, Yphtach. 2016. “Mass Polarization: Manifestations and Measurements.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 392–410. Levendusky, Matthew S. 2018. “Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?” The Journal of Politics 80(1): 59–70. Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McCoy, Jennifer, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer. 2018. “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 16–42. McCoy, Jennifer, and Murat Somer. 2019. “Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681(1): 234–71. McCoy, Jennifer, and Murat Somer. 2021. “Overcoming Polarization.” Journal of Democracy 32(1): 6–21. Reiljan, Andres. 2020. “‘Fear and Loathing across Party Lines’ (Also) in Europe: Affective Polarisation in European Party Systems.” European Journal of Political Research 59 (2): 376–96. Selcuk, Orcuc. 2024. The Authoritarian Divide. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press. Simonovits, Gabor, Jennifer McCoy, and Levente Littvay. 2022. “Democratic Hypocrisy and Out-Group Threat: Explaining Citizen Support for Democratic Erosion.” The Journal of Politics 84(3): 1806–11. Somer, Murat, Jennifer McCoy, and Ozlem Tuncel. 2022. “Toward a New Transition Theory: Opposition Dilemmas and Countering Democratic Erosion.” APSA Preprints. 10.33774/apsa-2022-nr4mz
1: How do studies of depolarization refine our understanding of the causes of affective polarization?
2: Besides prejudice reduction, what depolarizing techniques are there? What conditions enable them?
3: How can institutions and elites depolarize, and can they counter polarizing entrepreneurs?
4: How can we scale up depolarization efforts to recruit greater numbers of more diverse participants?
5: What are best practices in building academic-policy partnerships for impact evaluation and research?
Title Details
DOES DEPOLARIZATION START AT HOME? HOW FOREIGN THREATS AND ELITE CUES AFFECT COMPROMISE AND DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES View Paper Details
Affective Pluralization: How Political Theory Can Move Beyond Affective Polarization View Paper Details
Depolarizing the Classroom: The Effectiveness of Depolarization Communication Techniques View Paper Details
Framing the Other Side: How Straw Man Arguments Obscure Mutual Understanding in the Immigration Debate View Paper Details
Civil Society and De-Polarization During Crises View Paper Details
Informing voters, reducing hostility? Mitigating affective polarization in Poland with a voting advice application and a conversational chatbot View Paper Details