Affective polarization—partisans' dislike and distrust of the other party—has reached historically high levels in the United States, but its effects on political beliefs are less understood than its effects on apolitical outcomes.

🔎 How the study measures polarization and responses

• Uses pre-pandemic, exogenous measures of affective polarization to avoid confounding polarization with pandemic-era events.
• Employs an experiment focused on evaluations of the COVID-19 response to test whether partisan animus changes how people interpret ostensibly apolitical objects (e.g., “the United States”).

📊 Key findings

• Partisans with high levels of affective polarization do not distinguish between the "United States'" response to COVID-19 and the Trump administration's response.
• Less affectively polarized partisans do distinguish between evaluations of the country and evaluations of the administration and therefore do not politicize the nation's response.
• These patterns emerge apart from partisanship itself, indicating that partisan animus (affective polarization) independently shapes substantive political beliefs.

⚖️ Why it matters

• Demonstrates that affective polarization politicizes actors and issues that might otherwise be seen as nonpartisan, reshaping how citizens form political judgments.
• Suggests broader political consequences: beliefs about policy responses and public institutions can be distorted by interparty hostility, with implications for democratic accountability and public discourse.