Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40125444›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2025

How out-group animosity can shape partisan divisions: A model of affective polarization.

Buddhika Nettasinghe, Allon G Percus, Kristina Lerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Buddhika NettasingheDepartment of Business Analytics, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6070-892X
Allon G PercusInstitute of Mathematical Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA 91711, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-5284
Kristina LermanInformation Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5071-0575

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Politically divided societies are also often divided emotionally: people like and trust those with similar political views (in-group favoritism) while disliking and distrusting those with different views (out-group animosity). This phenomenon, called affective polarization, influences individual decisions, including seemingly apolitical choices such as whether to wear a mask or what car to buy. We present a dynamical model of decision-making in an affectively polarized society, identifying three potential global outcomes separated by a sharp boundary in the parameter space: consensus, partisan polarization, and nonpartisan polarization. Analysis reveals that larger out-group animosity compared to in-group favoritism, i.e.

Indexed as

affective polarizationhomophilyopinion dynamicspolitical psychologysocial networks

Identifiers

PMID40125444
PMCPMC11927084

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.