The Impact of Political Polarization on Gay Marriages in the United States: Annotated Bibliography

Bishin, B. G., Freebourn, J., & Teten, P. (2020). The Power of Equality? Polarization and Collective Mis-representation on Gay Rights in Congress, 1989–2019 – Benjamin G. Bishin, Justin Freebourn, Paul Teten, 2021. Political Research Quarterly. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1065912920953498

The article examines the reasons behind the lack of policy produced by the U.S. Congress regarding gay rights despite increased public support. The authors find that there has been a polarization by parties on LGBTQ issues, with Democrats becoming more supportive and Republicans becoming more opposed. The lack of collective representation leaves the LGBTQ community at risk of the decisions of presidents and jurists.

Broockman, D. E., & Skovron, C. (2018). Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000011

The article discusses politicians maintaining systematic misperceptions of constituency opinion that can lead to breakdowns in dyadic representation. The authors conducted surveys of 3,765 politicians’ perceptions of constituency opinion on nine issues and found that state legislative politicians from both parties dramatically overestimated their constituents’ support for conservative policies. They suggest that this overestimation may arise due to biases in who contacts politicians, with Republican citizens being especially likely to contact legislators, especially fellow Republicans.

Geiger, A. (2014, June 12). Political Polarization in the American Public. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy; Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Using data from Pew Research Center surveys, the article explores the problem of partisan polarization in the American population. The political dissection has been fully-fledged in recent years, with individuals progressively aligning with one party or the other and having more radical viewpoints, according to the author. The article delves into the statistics on political polarization, including demographics, problem views, and media consumption patterns.

Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., Green, J. C., Herrera, R., & Cooperman, R. (2010). Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305541000016x

The article explores the role of party activists in “conflict extension” and the polarization of parties in contemporary American politics. The authors argue that open nomination systems and ambitious politicians encourage activists with extreme views to become involved in party politics, motivating candidates to take non-centrist positions on various issues. The study provides evidence for conflict extension among party activists and suggests that issue conversion among activists has contributed substantially to this polarization.

Levendusky, M. (2010). The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (Chicago Studies in American Politics)—University of Chicago Press.

This book analyzes the evolution of partisan division in American politics. According to the author, the present division is mainly the result of a “partisan sort” – the propensity for people to choose political parties based on their ideological views. The book offers a historical study of this sorting process, using poll data and other sources to back up its case.

Mcalexander, J. H., Dufault, B., Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. (2014, October). The Marketization of Religion: Field, Capital, and Consumer Identity. ResearchGate; University of Chicago Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272552536_The_Marketization_of_Religion_Field_Capital_and_Consumer_Identity

This article explores the concept of marketization of religion and how it shapes consumer identity. The authors examine how religion is increasingly viewed through the lens of consumerism, with religious institutions and organizations competing for market share and appealing to consumers through branding, marketing, and other market-oriented strategies.

McCarty, N. (2019). Polarization: What everyone needs to know®. Oxford University Press.

“Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know®,” by Nolan McCarty, offers an overview of the factors that contribute to political division in the United States, such as the role of the media, political parties, and interest groups. McCarty investigates the effects of division on political organizations, policymaking, and public opinion, as well as possible solutions for decreasing polarization. This work offers a thorough and readable introduction to the problem of political polarization in the United States.

Van der Toorn, J., Jost, J. T., Packer, D. J., Noorbaloochi, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). In Defense of Tradition: Religiosity, Conservatism, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in North America. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1455–1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217718523

This research explores the part of religion and conformists in North American fight against same-sex marriage. Due to their devotion to conservative values and observations, religious and conformist persons are more likely to reject same-sex marriage, according to these researchers. Generally, the research sheds light on the function of ideology and identification in shaping people’s views toward societal glitches.

Weber, T. J., Hydock, C., & Steenburg, E. V. (2021). Political Polarization: Challenges, Opportunities, and Hope for Consumer Welfare, Marketers, and Public Policy – T.J. Weber, Chris Hydock, William Ding, Meryl Gardner, Pradeep Jacob, Naomi Mandel, David E. Sprott, Eric Van Steenburg, 2021. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0743915621991103

The article examines the effects of political polarization on customer happiness, marketers, and public policy. It identifies the challenges and possibilities in this environment and emphasizes the importance of creating strategies to handle them. The authors contend that by understanding the fundamental causes and effects of political division, stakeholders can better negotiate this complicated terrain and work toward solutions that benefit society.

Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621-647.

This article examines the ideological foundations of affective polarization, described as the hatred or dislike felt by members of various political groups toward one another. The writers contend that ideological disparities between Democrats and Republicans on racism, gender, and economic disparity are at the core of affective polarization. They also indicate that affective polarization is self-perpetuating, as negative emotions toward the opposing party can make people more politically radical.

References

Bishin, B. G., Freebourn, J., & Teten, P. (2020). The Power of Equality? Polarization and Collective Mis-representation on Gay Rights in Congress, 1989–2019 – Benjamin G. Bishin, Justin Freebourn, Paul Teten, 2021. Political Research Quarterly. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1065912920953498

Broockman, D. E., & Skovron, C. (2018). Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000011

Geiger, A. (2014, June 12). Political Polarization in the American Public. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy; Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., Green, J. C., Herrera, R., & Cooperman, R. (2010). Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305541000016x

Levendusky, M. (2010). The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (Chicago Studies in American Politics)—University of Chicago Press.

Mcalexander, J. H., Dufault, B., Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. (2014, October). The Marketization of Religion: Field, Capital, and Consumer Identity. ResearchGate; University of Chicago Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272552536_The_Marketization_of_Religion_Field_Capital_and_Consumer_Identity

McCarty, N. (2019). Polarization: What everyone needs to know®. Oxford University Press.

van der Toorn, J., Jost, J. T., Packer, D. J., Noorbaloochi, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). In Defense of Tradition: Religiosity, Conservatism, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in North America. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1455–1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217718523

Weber, T. J., Hydock, C., & Steenburg, E. V. (2021). Political Polarization: Challenges, Opportunities, and Hope for Consumer Welfare, Marketers, and Public Policy – T.J. Weber, Chris Hydock, William Ding, Meryl Gardner, Pradeep Jacob, Naomi Mandel, David E. Sprott, Eric Van Steenburg, 2021. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0743915621991103

Webster, S. W., & Abramowitz, A. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621-647.