Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes


There is widespread concern that rising affective polarization—particularly dislike for outpartisans—exacerbates Americans’ anti-democratic attitudes. Accordingly, scholars and practitioners alike have invested great effort in developing depolarization interventions that reduce affective polarization. Critically, however, it remains unclear whether these interventions reduce anti-democratic attitudes, or only change sentiments towards outpartisans. Here we address this question with experimental tests (total n = 8,385) of three previously established depolarization interventions: correcting misperceptions of outpartisans, priming inter-partisan friendships and observing warm cross-partisan interactions between political leaders. While these depolarization interventions reliably reduced affective polarization, we do not find compelling evidence that these interventions reduced support for undemocratic candidates, support for partisan violence or prioritizing partisan ends over democratic means. Thus, future efforts to strengthen pro-democratic attitudes may do better if they target these outcomes directly. More broadly, these findings call into question the previously assumed causal effect of affective polarization on anti-democratic attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Effects of the friendship intervention and the misperception correction intervention on affective polarization and anti-democratic attitudes, study 1.
Fig. 2: Effects of the misperception correction intervention on affective polarization and anti-democratic attitudes, study 2.
Fig. 3: Effects of the warm elite relations intervention on affective polarization and anti-democratic attitudes, study 3.

Data Availability

The data for our studies are openly available via

Code Availability

The analysis scripts for our studies are openly available via


  1. Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. J. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 59, 690–707 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Finkel, E. J. et al. Political sectarianism in America: a poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion, and moralization. Science 370, 533–536 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Rev. Econ. Stat. (2022).

  5. Iyengar, S. & Krupenkin, M. The strengthening of partisan affect. Polit. Psychol. 39, 201–218 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Partisan antipathy: more intense, more personal. Pew Research Center (2019).

  7. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey, Study #181259. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies (2018).

  8. Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Elect. Stud. 41, 12–22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diermeier, D. & Li, C. Partisan affect and elite polarization. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 277–281 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hetherington, M. J. & Rudolph, T. J. Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis (Univ. Chicago Press, 2015).

  11. Klein, E. Why We’re Polarized (Simon and Schuster, 2020).

  12. Levendusky, M. S. Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide. Unpublished manuscript, Univ. Pennsylvania (2020).

  13. Mason, L. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (Univ. Chicago Press, 2018).

  14. Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80, 964–981 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Huddy, L. & Yair, O. Reducing affective polarization: warm group relations or policy compromise? Polit. Psychol. 42, 291–309 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Levendusky, M. S. Americans, not partisans: can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? J. Polit. 80, 59–70 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14864–14872 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruggeri, K. et al. The general fault in our fault lines. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1369–1380 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Simonsson, O. & Marks, J. Love thy (partisan) neighbor: brief befriending meditation reduces affective polarization. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 25, 1577–1593 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Swanson, S. By the people: the role of local deliberative forums in combating affective political polarization. The Project on International Peace and Security (2021).

  22. Voelkel, J. G., Ren, D. & Brandt, M. J. Inclusion reduces political prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 95, 104149 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Warner, B. R., Horstman, H. K. & Kearney, C. C. Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 48, 459–477 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wojcieszak, M. & Warner, B. R. Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Polit. Commun. 37, 789–811 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zoizner, A., Shenhav, S. R., Fogel-Dror, Y. & Sheafer, T. Strategy news is good news: how journalistic coverage of politics reduces affective polarization. Polit. Commun. 38, 604–623 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hartman, R. et al. Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1194–1205 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gidron, N., Adams, J. & Horne, W. American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).

  28. Kingzette, J. et al. How affective polarization undermines support for Democratic norms. Public. Opin. Q. 85, 663–677 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200143 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McCoy, J. & Sommer, M. Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: comparative evidence and possible remedies. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 681, 234–271 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Orhan, Y. E. The relationship between affective polarization and democratic backsliding: comparative evidence. Democratization 29, 714–735 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Broockman, D. E., Kalla, J. L. & Westwood, S. J. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Am. J. Pol. Sci. (2022).

  33. Carlin, R. E. & Love, G. J. Political competition, partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 115–139 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Whitt, S. et al. Tribalism in America: behavioral experiments on affective polarization in the Trump era. J. Exp. Political Sci. 8, 247–259 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Graham, M. H. & Svolik, M. W. Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 392–409 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kalmoe, N. P. & Mason, L. Lethal mass partisanship: prevalence, correlates, and electoral contingencies. Preprint at National Capital Area Political Science Association American Politics Meeting (2019).

  37. Abbink, K. & Sadrieh, A. The pleasure of being nasty. Econ. Lett. 105, 306–308 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. van Doorn, J. et al. The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 28, 813–826 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Griffin, J. W. Calculating statistical power for meta-analysis using metapower. Quant. Method Psychol. 17, 24–39 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gift, K. & Gift, T. Does politics influence hiring? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Polit. Behav. 37, 653–675 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N. & Levendusky, M. The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 62, 5–18 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cassese, E. C. Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Polit. Behav. 43, 29–50 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Uscinski, J. E. et al. American politics in two dimensions: partisan and ideological identities versus anti‐establishment orientations. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 65, 877–895 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bougher, L. D. The correlates of discord: identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Polit. Behav. 39, 731–762 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mason, L. A cross-cutting calm: how social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opin. Q. 80, 351–377 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Santos, L. A., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R. & Zaki, J. Belief in the utility of cross-partisan empathy reduces partisan animosity and facilitates political persuasion. Psychol. Sci. 33, 1557–1573 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Simas, E. N., Clifford, S. & Kirkland, J. H. How empathic concern fuels political polarization. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 258–269 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bartels, L. M. Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans’ commitment to democracy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 22752–22759 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A. G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Groenendyk, E. Competing motives in a polarized electorate: political responsiveness, identity defensiveness, and the rise of partisan antipathy. Polit. Psychol. 39, 159–171 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors received funding for this project from the Civic Health Project (R.W.), the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (R.W.) and the Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University (J.N.D.). This work is supported under a Stanford Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship (J.G.V.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.G.V., J.C., M.N.S., J.S.M., C.R., S.L.P., J.N.D., D.G.R. and R.W. designed the studies. J.G.V., J.C., M.N.S., J.S.M., C.R., S.L.P. and R.W. collected the data. J.G.V. analysed the data. J.G.V. and D.G.R. wrote the manuscript. J.C., M.N.S., J.N.D. and R.W. provided comments on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jan G. Voelkel or Robb Willer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Eric Groenendyk, Omer Yair and Magdalena Wojcieszak for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information on pilot study 1, supplementary information on pilot study 2, supplementary information on descriptive statistics, supplementary information on main and moderating effects of partisan identity, supplementary information on correlational statistics for the joy-of-destruction game, Tables 1–21 and Figs. 1–18c.

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Voelkel, J.G., Chu, J., Stagnaro, M.N. et al. Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nat Hum Behav 7, 55–64 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing