Differences in affective polarization, need for closure, intellectual humility, identity strength, and authoritarianism among Liberals and Conservatives: A secondary data analysis of McMurtrie (2024).

Research has shown that affective polarization has been increasing in many countries around the world, not least in the U.S. The differences in psychology and personality between the two broad ‘wings’ of political ideology has also been a major focal point in psychological research, as psychologists seek to understand why group members believe, think, and behave the way they do, and how this contributes to polarization. This study explores differences in affective polarization, need for closure, intellectual humility, identity strength, and authoritarianism between American liberals (n = 170) and conservatives (n = 161). Using data from McMurtrie et al. (2024), we conducted t-tests and regression analyses to compare liberals and conservatives on these constructs, and to investigate how they predict affective polarization. Conservatives exhibited significantly higher need for closure and lower intellectual humility compared to liberals. Surprisingly, conservatives also demonstrated lower affective polarization across all measures, including social distance, aversion, and incivility. Regression analyses showed that intellectual humility predicted lower affective polarization for both groups. Need for closure predicted higher affective polarization only for conservatives, while authoritarianism strongly predicted higher affective polarization for liberals. Identity strength was a significant predictor of higher affective polarization for both groups. The results highlight the complex interplay between cognitive styles, identity, and political attitudes, contributing to the understanding of affective polarization in the American context.