Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39820604›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Affective polarization in a word: Open-ended and self-coded evaluations of partisan affect.

Spencer Kiesel, Sharif Amlani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Spencer KieselDepartment of Political Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1722-4409
Sharif AmlaniDepartment of Political Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The literature finds that partisanship drives negative emotional evaluations of out-partisans. Yet, scholars base these insights on measures-like thermometers, candidate evaluations, and social-distance measures-that discount the sentiment attached to individuals' negative attitudes. We introduce a unique measure of affect capturing the motivation underpinning partisans' attitudes. Our measure asks respondents for one-word to describe voters in their party and the opposing party. Then respondents code the sentiment behind their word choice themselves. Together, our measure produces qualitative and quantitative measures of respondents' affect. We find that our self-coded open-ended measure has strong face validity and correlates strongly with existing affect measures. This measure advances our understating of partisan affect by allowing scholars a window into respondents' state of mind. Scholars can easily apply our measure's procedure beyond partisanship to other groups of interest.

Indexed as

AffectPoliticsAdultAttitudeEmotionsFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39820604
PMCPMC11737763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.