Home | What the Research Shows | What Respectful Disagreement Looks Like | Sources
Four peer-reviewed studies help explain why political disagreement so often feels personal.
Jacoby (1988) studied 1980 election survey data and found that people mostly figure out what they believe on an issue by looking at what their own party believes, not the reverse. Party identification comes first and shapes opinions, more than opinions shape party identification.
Goren (2005) followed the same voters over several years and found that party identification was more stable over time than values like belief in equal opportunity, limited government, or moral tolerance. People adjusted their values to match their party more than they picked a party to match their values.
Jeong (2025) studied Asian American and Latino voters and found that a psychological desire to fit into mainstream American culture predicted Republican identification more strongly than income, education, or ideology. Party choice, in other words, is about protecting a sense of belonging to a group, not just about policy preferences.
Iyengar and colleagues (2019) reviewed decades of research and found that dislike and distrust of the opposing party has grown sharply since the late 1970s, to the point that it affects personal life. Importantly, they also found this can be reduced: correcting misperceptions about what the other side actually believes, and emphasizing a shared identity, both lower hostility between partisans.
The findings highlight that cross-party conflict is driven mainly by identity, not only by disagreement over policy. If the hostility comes partly from misunderstanding who the other side actually is, then it can be reduced by correcting those misunderstandings and finding shared ground.