So, you’re telling me that people get emotionally charged over politics? NO WAY!
Next, you’ll tell me that Tom doesn’t like Jerry, and the sun rises in the east.
But seriously, how does “affective polarization”—that gut-level emotional attachment where we love our party and loathe the other—affect what we believe? It turns out, it’s not just about cheering for your team; it might also mean believing whatever makes your side look good, even if it’s, well, a bit shaky on the facts.
Given the swirl of misinformation around FEMA’s hurricane response lately, I wanted to dig deeper into our previous exploration of affective polarization and explore how affective polarization shapes what people accept as truth.
Let’s explore some additional academic research that digs further into this phenomenon!
Title: Affective Polarization and Misinformation Belief
Link: Affective Polarization Study
Peer Review Status: Peer-reviewed
Citation: Jenke, Libby. “Affective Polarization and Misinformation Belief.” Political Behavior 46 (2024): 825–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w.
Introduction
The study by Libby Jenke focuses on how political party loyalty (affective polarization) influences our belief in misinformation, especially when the misinformation aligns with our own party.
Affective polarization has already been blamed for various social ills—like ruining Thanksgiving dinners—but what about its effects on political beliefs?
This paper argues that those who are highly polarized are more likely to believe misinformation that favors their party and dismiss information that favors the opposition.
Methodology
The study uses data from two sources: the ANES 2020 Social Media Study and the ANES 2020 Time Series Study, both survey-based studies with large sample sizes (5104 and 6352 respondents, respectively). Jenke also conducted a survey experiment where participants played a game designed to increase or decrease their level of affective polarization. By comparing these responses, the study explores whether heightened polarization causes greater belief in misinformation.Results and Findings
Here’s where it gets interesting. The research confirmed that affective polarization indeed makes people more likely to believe misinformation that supports their party’s narrative.
If you’re deeply emotionally invested in your political party, you’re more inclined to believe information—even false information—that makes your side look good. On the flip side, you’re more likely to reject anything that might put your opponents in a positive light, even if it’s true.
This pattern held for both Democrats and Republicans, with one caveat: political sophistication (meaning how much someone knows about politics) doesn’t help. In fact, more politically knowledgeable folks are just better at rationalizing their party’s misinformation.
“Furthermore, the relationship between affective polarization and misinformation belief is exacerbated by political sophistication rather than tempered by it,” (Jenke 2023, p 825)
For example, Republicans were more likely to believe misinformation about illegal voting in the 2016 election and less likely to believe in Russian interference. Democrats, on the other hand, were more likely to believe that Trump deported more unauthorized immigrants than Obama—an inaccuracy.
The study found that increased affective polarization was a significant predictor of believing in-party-congruent misinformation and disbelieving out-party-congruent misinformation.
Critiques and Areas for Future Research
While the study does a solid job of linking affective polarization to misinformation belief, it doesn’t fully explore why political sophistication exacerbates the problem instead of mitigating it. Shouldn’t smarter people know better?
Another area for future study is how to break the cycle of polarization. The paper suggests that simply educating people more might not be enough—after all, the more politically savvy you are, the better you are at confirming your biases.
Moreover, the study’s focus on U.S. political dynamics raises questions about whether these findings would hold in other countries with different political structures or levels of polarization.
An interesting future study could explore these findings in a multi-party system to see if those citizens experience the same patterns.