Massey Documents by Type

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/294

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Williams MSubject: search.filters.subject.affective polarization

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Political polarization and wellbeing: Investigating potential intrapersonal harm From affective polarization
    (Ubiquity Press, 2025-12-01) McMurtrie B; Roemer A; Philipp M; Hebden R; Williams M
    Affective polarization—antipathy towards members of one’s political out-group—may pose challenges to social cohesion and personal wellbeing. Prior studies have suggested that one’s affective polarization may cause intrapersonal harm as well as interpersonal harm. It has been associated with reduced social support, increased stress, and worse physical health. This pre-registered study investigated the intrapersonal harm of affective polarization using a six-wave longitudinal survey (N = 470). Affective polarization, social support, perceived stress, and self-rated health were measured fortnightly for three months preceding the 2024 US presidential election. Random intercept cross-lagged panel models were employed to investigate the within-person effects of affective polarization on these indicators of wellbeing. Contrary to hypotheses, none of the hypothesized cross-lagged effects were significant, suggesting that changes in affective polarization did not predict changes in social support, stress, or health. However, cross-sectional analyses did reflect past findings, showing that higher levels of affective polarization were associated with lower social support, greater stress, and worse health. We additionally found evidence for perceived stress causing moderate increases in affective polarization. Stable differences by political orientation were also observed in our sample, with liberals reporting higher affective polarization and stress, lower social support, and worse health. Despite the lack of significant effects, potentially due to limitations such as sample size and measurement constraints, our findings underscore the importance of further investigations with appropriate robust designs to clarify the relationship between affective polarization and wellbeing. These results challenge the assumption that affective polarization directly drives declines in wellbeing.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development and Validation of the Affective Polarization Scale
    (Ubiquity Press, 2024-06-05) McMurtrie B; Philipp M; Hebden R; Williams M
    Affective polarization – an expressed aversion and dislike of members of one’s political outgroup – has increased in many polities in recent years, and thus published research on the topic has proliferated. Studies have asserted that affective polarization is tied to prejudice and authoritarianism, among other potentially harmful phenomena, and is buffered by intellectual humility. We assert that this literature is hindered by the use of ad hoc, heterogeneous measures of affective polarization which have not been properly psychometrically evaluated, and which limit research clarity and make cumulative science on the topic difficult. Informed by the common extant measures of affective polarization we constructed a new scale and investigated its reliability and construct validity. In Study 1 we generated items and had them rated by subject matter experts for content validity (N = 6). In Study 2, a sample of US participants completed the scale (N = 326), an EFA suggested a three-factor model, which had good reliability. In Study 3, a CFA (N = 331) confirmed that a three-factor model fit the data, with subscales labelled Social Distance, Aversion, and Incivility. We also showed that our Affective Polarization Scale had good reliability, through the results of the α- and ω-indicators of reliability. Construct validity analyses supported all pre-registered hypotheses, showing that scores on our scale were positively correlated with authoritarianism, need for closure, and identity strength, and negatively correlated with intellectual humility. We make suggestions for future research and scale usage, such as investigating measurement invariance in different populations, or with different outgroup targets.