Mind the Gap: Partisan Bias in Justifying Political Violence in the United States

Abstract Political polarization in America has intensified beyond mere disagreement to what scholars characterize as sectarianism—a condition where partisan identity fundamentally shapes moral judgments. A key marker of sectarianism is asymmetric moral standards for violence, where aggression against political opponents is considered more justified than identical violence targeting one’s own group. Using a survey experiment featuring a realistic political rally scenario, we find compelling evidence in support of such sectarianism: partisan bias in the US extends to evaluations of political violence. By manipulating the partisan affiliations of perpetrators and targets, as well as provocation severity, we find that both Democrats and Republicans exhibit substantial and symmetrical partisan bias. This double standard is particularly pronounced among strong partisans, who are nearly three times more likely to justify violence against the opposition than violence targeting their own party. These results extend sectarianism theory beyond policy preferences to physical violence, suggesting that partisan identity now functions as a powerful perceptual filter that can legitimize political aggression when directed at opponents.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2026-03-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfag010
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mind the Gap: Partisan Bias in Justifying Political Violence in the United States

Lilliana Mason, Tor Midtbø, Cornelius Cappelen, Lars Erik Berntzen
Public Opinion Quarterly
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
article

Mind the Gap: Partisan Bias in Justifying Political Violence in the United States

Lilliana Mason, Tor Midtbø, Cornelius Cappelen, Lars Erik Berntzen
article en

Abstract

Abstract Political polarization in America has intensified beyond mere disagreement to what scholars characterize as sectarianism—a condition where partisan identity fundamentally shapes moral judgments. A key marker of sectarianism is asymmetric moral standards for violence, where aggression against political opponents is considered more justified than identical violence targeting one’s own group. Using a survey experiment featuring a realistic political rally scenario, we find compelling evidence in support of such sectarianism: partisan bias in the US extends to evaluations of political violence. By manipulating the partisan affiliations of perpetrators and targets, as well as provocation severity, we find that both Democrats and Republicans exhibit substantial and symmetrical partisan bias. This double standard is particularly pronounced among strong partisans, who are nearly three times more likely to justify violence against the opposition than violence targeting their own party. These results extend sectarianism theory beyond policy preferences to physical violence, suggesting that partisan identity now functions as a powerful perceptual filter that can legitimize political aggression when directed at opponents.

Public Opinion Quarterly
Johns Hopkins University (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US), University of Bergen (NO)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.