Affective polarization – partisans’ dislike and distrust of those from the other party – has reached historically high levels in the United States. While numerous studies estimate its effect on apolitical outcomes (e.g., dating and economic transactions), we know much less about its effects on political beliefs. We argue that those who exhibit high levels of affective polarization politicize ostensibly apolitical issues and actors. An experiment focused on responses to COVID-19 that relies on pre-pandemic, exogenous measures of affective polarization supports our expectations. Partisans who harbor high levels of animus towards the other party do not differentiate the “United States’” response to COVID-19 from that of the Trump administration. Less affectively polarized partisans, in contrast, do not politicize evaluations of the country’s response. Our results provide evidence of how affective polarization, apart from partisanship itself, shapes substantive beliefs. Affective polarization has political consequences and political beliefs stem, in part, from partisan animus.

This project draws on psychological and sociological social psychology to investigate immigration policy opinions among native-born non-Hispanic Whites. Using data from a suburban Chicago-area county that has seen substantial growth in the Latino immigrant population, we examine Anglos’ opinions on three dimensions of immigration policy: preferred immigration rate, resistance to immigration, and assistance for immigrants. Our central hypothesis is that liberalizing effects of Anglo/Latino interpersonal contact are conditioned on Anglos’ recognition of hardships and barriers faced by Latinos. Five of the six interaction effects we estimated were highly significant: Personal contact with Latinos does promote more positive, progressive immigration policy opinions, but only among some Anglos—those who were acquainted with immigrants who had run afoul of immigration law or believed there is substantial local discrimination against Latinos. The results are reminiscent of James Kluegel’s (1985) analysis of White Americans’ views about affirmative action: “If there isn’t a problem, you don’t need a solution.” Affirmation of local anti-Latino discrimination was the stronger moderator of contact effects and also showed main effects on immigration policy opinion stronger than the effects of interpersonal contact. Denial of anti-Latino discrimination may be a means used by Anglos to defend their group position.