Love, loathing, or both?

Abstract

In contemporary scholarship, affective polarization is predominantly understood and measured as the difference between ingroup and outgroup affect. We show, both conceptually and empirically, that these affective orientations constitute distinct phenomena rather than interchangeable components of a single construct. Collapsing them into a composite measure of polarization obscures fundamental differences in how ingroup affect, outgroup affect, and their combination relate to political attitudes and behavior. Replicating two seminal studies on the correlates of affective polarization, we find that previously reported consequences of affective polarization are rooted in different configurations of these three dimensions, contingent on the outcome under consideration. Drawing on a machine-assisted review of 179 published articles, we further show that the term affective polarization is applied inconsistently to substantively different concepts. We conclude by underscoring the need for greater conceptual precision, theoretical clarity, and methodological rigor in affective polarization research and by offering recommendations for future research.