Study from Annenberg researchers shows political tension stays consistent before, after elections

A new study from fourth-year Ph.D. candidate Neil Fasching and Communication professor Yphtach Lelkes at the Annenberg School for Communication found that political polarization in the United States remains relatively constant throughout the course of elections. 

In the study released in September, Fasching and Lelkes — along with co-authors Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar and Dartmouth College professor Sean Westwood — tracked levels of partisan animosity between Democrats and Republicans before and after the 2022 U.S. midterm election. The study analyzed data from 66,000 different interviews and found that animosities endured even postelection, contrary to the belief that political tension intensifies during an election and fades after that period is over. 

“Scholars have widely accepted that as elections draw near and campaigning reaches a fever pitch, affective polarization increases, only to recede in the days and weeks following the election,” Lelkes told the Annenberg School in the news release. He went on to say that their research suggests that this shift does not occur, even during a "contentious election season." 

The findings showed little change in measures of polarization during pre-election and post-election periods. According to the study, “Citizens no longer recover from campaigns and elections; instead, they maintain their high levels of affective polarization — the tendency for political party members to harbor distrust and aversion toward members of the opposing party — and do not walk back their support for violations of basic democratic norms or the use of political violence.” 

The study also highlighted the role of campaigning in intensifying political polarization among parties. Individuals who are more exposed to campaigns tended to show higher levels of polarization, but these levels remained constant regardless of the election’s outcome. The researchers suggested that “the partisan divide is ingrained in voters’ minds” and is resistant to the short term fluctuations due to election periods. 

The authors highlighted that the study's findings suggest that "efforts by opportunistic candidates to stoke animus and division during campaigns are likely to prove ineffective." However, the study also noted the durability of political polarization in public life and concluded that “the implication of such entrenched polarization could be ominous.”

Fasching acknowledged the concerning implications of such deep-rooted polarization.

“Partisan animosity appears to be deeply embedded in American society, rather than being a short-term response to electoral campaigns,” he said in the news release. “However, all hope is not lost. Our results suggest that efforts by future political candidates to stoke hatred and division during campaigns are likely to prove ineffective, particularly when such efforts promote violence or the erosion of democratic norms.”