Referee Report

Tuğrul Eroğlu*

Authors: Druckman, James N. & Matthew S. Levendusky

Title: What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?
Details: Public Opinion Quarterly 83, No. 1 (2019): 114–22.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003.

Theory & Methodology of The Research

The article presents a critical analysis of the literature on `affective polarization. ` Following
an introductory coverage of the notion, the analysis mainly takes issue with two interrelated
methodological deficiencies widespread in the literature.
As defined in the article, affective polarization is about partisan distrust and dislike,
stemming from the party identification and associated division of the world into appreciated in-group
and despised out-group per the partisan lines. Specifically, the case under scrutiny for the article is
the division among the Democrats and Republicans and their perception and attitude towards each
other.
While the article does not advance further in its conceptual debate with the literature,
it focuses on the methodological debate, i.e., how to study and measure affective polarization. In that
regard, the article problematizes two distinct but interrelated methodological tendencies in the
literature. One deficiency widespread in the literature is argued to be the lack of comprehensive
utilization of the variables utilized to measure affective polarization. Affective polarization is
generally measured through different variables, i.e., thermometer ratings, trait perceptions, trust
measures, and social distance items. The studies mostly utilized these variables partially or even
interchangeably. In that regard, the article inquiries into how these measurements relate to one
another and problematizes the interchangeable utilization of those that measure general attitudes
with social-distance measures. In order to be able to touch upon these concerns, it conducts a
comprehensive analysis that correlates all these variables. In that regard, the article not only provides
a comprehensive outlook in their utilization for the measurement as opposed to partial utilization
widespread throughout the literature but also reveals the nature of the interrelation for the variables
that had been used interchangeably. The study reveals the different results that general outlook and
social-distance measurements present.

* M.A. Candidate at HSE University – PEP Program

teroglu@edu.hse.ru
 Another point of contention of the article focuses on the target of measurement. The
article problematizes the wording of the surveys which adopt 'Party' as an umbrella term with no
specification for the object. It is argued that Party might refer to both party elites and ordinary
supporters, and respondents might have different answers with respect to different associations. The
article hence proves the point by conducting an experimental study and argues that respondents'
general attitude and level of trust radically change when the object of the survey is delineated. The
study reveals that respondents tend to have a more negative attitude towards the party elites than
ordinary people from the opposing party association.

Criticism

Although the article presents clear-cut arguments and testament in its criticism
towards the literature, it is still not immune to criticism on either point listed above:
(1) While it presents a radical distinction between the measurements of general attitude and
measurements of a particular behavior, it fails to present a meaningful distinction or form of
utilization within measurements of general attitude as they generally present a similar correlation. In
that sense, the article presents a comprehensive analysis of the measurements and their correlation,
yet it eventually suggests their appropriate utilization in accordance with the research question,
which is not far from the practice intensely criticized by the article.
(2) The article also illuminates the necessity of delineation about the target of studies,
specifically what Party means when expressed in surveys. Moreover, the experimental study
effectively proves the impact of the wording the meaning referent of the surveys. However, the
article misses the point that regardless of the polarization or in-group/out-group dynamics, the level
of trust and general attitude towards politicians or party elites might naturally change. In that regard,
the article does not put any effort into explaining the impact of possible general mistrust towards
politicians regardless of their party affiliations or affective polarization.
(3) Unfortunately, there is no effective proposition that will show the effect of external factors
among the criteria proposed to measure the "Polarization" problem in the research. If people
encounter a situation that contradicts their core beliefs, they experience extreme discomfort and
mental stress. This is called cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962). Cognitive dissonance theory is
based on the principle that people constantly seek harmony between their own expectations and
attitudes and the real world. For this reason, when people encounter a conflict, they try to reduce the
effect of conflict by harmonizing their acceptance and behavior. Thus, psychological tension is
reduced with the harmony achieved. For this:
a. People can change the meaning they attach to the concept, which is the source of stress,
and therefore its behavior.
b. People can change the meaning of the situation that shows the source of stress.
 c. People can interpret their attitude or decision with new concepts and creates conditions
that will legitimize their behavior.
The external pressure environment that will manipulate the management of cognitive conflict
forces people to experience preference falsification (Kuran,1997). Preference falsification is the
situation that arises as a result of the persons who are afraid of social pressure, not daring to explain
and express their thoughts, and pretending to support the thought accepted by society. Since the
individuals express very different things from what they really think, they create an unrealistic
perception of themselves. Thus, they have two sets of preferences, one that they truly believe in, the
other that they project outward and that is perceived by the society and those who have power in the
society. This second set of preferences includes features that are generally accepted by the majority
of the society and are not excluded. Therefore, measurement recommendations for "polarization"
must also take into account the effect of external pressure environments.

Bibliography

Druckman, James N. & Matthew S. Levendusky (2009), What Do We Measure When We

Measure Affective Polarization?, Public Opinion Quarterly 83, No. 1 (2019): 114–22.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003.
Festinger L. (1962), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press,
Kuran T. (1997), Private Truths, Public Lies The Social Consequences of Preference
Falsification, Harvard University Press