ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Measuring norm pluralism and perceived polarization in US politics.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increased complexity of social category markers leads to diverse rule-based categorizations and reduced intergroup bias.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- How opinion variation among in-groups can skew perceptions of ideological polarization.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Article
- Measuring norm pluralism and perceived polarization in US politics.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research has shown how norms shape political and economic decision-making. Much of this work assumes that a single norm influences the behavior of all people, but in fact, many situations are characterized by the existence of competing normative viewpoints. We apply a method for measuring belief in the simultaneous existence of multiple norms. Such multiplicity arises naturally when norms are associated with distinctive groups, and thus political polarization can be characterized, in part, as a product of diverging norms between groups. We thus assess the validity of our measurement technique by testing whether it can recover polarization on seven salient political issues on which US Democrats and Republicans tend to hold different views. We then compare the norms elicited by our method to the norms of Democrats and Republicans elicited in a separate sample using an established and validated-but methodologically less rich-measurement approach. Our study uncovers a wide range of co-existing views between and within political groups. Partisans understand their group's norms and hold personal views that align with them. They can also recognize the diversity and polarization in US public opinion by identifying norms specific to political parties and acknowledging the variety of views within their own parties, which may indicate internal divisions. This research underscores the importance of nuanced approaches to political norms that go beyond party lines. By acknowledging a plurality of views, we can encourage productive discussions and bridge ideological divides.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.