Writing Project 1

Sam Carpenter

Prof. Allison Bocchino

02/21/2024

Political polarization is an often undermined concept, however is a very critical aspect of

our political climate today. Political polarization depicts the growing division between political

parties that provokes various conflicts, and problems in our society. Political polarization can be

examined through various lenses and the most interesting I believe is the academic disciplines of

history and psychology. These two disciplines are very important to understanding political

polorization however they examine this topic very differently. Political polarization has been a

catalyst throughout history and a driving factor for many historical conflicts. However, a key

way to examine the drivers behind political polarization is to look at it through a psychological

lens. Although both focus on the causes of political polarization, psychology attempts to

understand the cause of political polarization in terms of the human mind and behavior while

history looks at the cause of political polarization through specific instances in the past.

The article ”How Empathetic Concern Drives Political Polarization” 1 bridges the gap

between psychology and political polarization and employs empathetic concern as a driving

factor. The article “The Bush Effect: polarization, turnout, and Activism in the 2004 presidential

election."2 focuses on modern political history with the Bush presidency and how this

contributed to political polarization. Throughout this essay these different approaches from

1 Simas , Elizabeth N, Scott Clifford , and Justin H . Kirkland. “How Empathic Concern Fuels Political
Polarization.” American Political Science Review 114, no. October 31, 2019 : 258–69.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000534.
2 Abramowitz, Alan I., and Walter J. Stone. "The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the 2004
presidential election." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 2 (June 2006): 141+. Gale In Context:
Biography(accessed January 31, 2024). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A147615306/BIC?
u=ucsantabarbara&sid=bookmark-BIC&xid=39b4e7b7.
psychology and history will be displayed through the differing presentation of evidence, jargon

and tone, and organizational structure.

Differing Presentation of Evidence

Although both articles' claims are supported through the use of evidence, the presentation

of evidence is very different. The Article “How Empathetic Concern Drives Political

Polarization”3 uses more scientific and detailed evidence while connecting political polarization

to the human mind, and behavior. The first example of evidence is a more subtle reference to

psychology “Individuals report taking greater pleasure in misfortunes such as troop casualties

and economic downturns when those misfortunes are attributed to the opposite party”4. The

presentation of evidence uses scenarios connected to human emotion as a way to support their

claim, which is often distinctly seen in psychological articles.. Other types of evidence in this

article were seen through the use of statistics and visual representations like graphs and charts.

One specific statistical example is “1,181 respondents from their opt-in internet survey panel and

matched 1,000 respondents to the population on gender, age, race, ideology, political interest,

voter registration, and partisanship”5. This piece of evidence further employs the focus on the

human mind and behavior by using “1,000 respondents to the population on gender, age, race,

ideology, political interest, voter registration, and partisanship.6.The use of this scientific study

distinctly represents the evidentiary approach in the psychology discipline.

Contrastingly throughout the history article, various presidential elections were used to

employ the ‘Bush Effect”7. Comparisons to previous elections were used, to show much of the

historical impact of Bush on political polarization. One example of historical evidence being

3 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019

4 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
5 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019 (You Gov)
6 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
7 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
used is “1972, 42 points for Jimmy Carter in 1980, 52 points for Ronald Reagan in 1988, 55

points for Bill Clinton in 1996, and 71 points for George W. Bush in 2004.”8. The use of a

historical timeline and references to past events emphasize the history discipline in this paper.

On top of this various graphs, and charts were used as a way to show the historical progression

or regression of political polarization dating back to 1952. One graph that stuck out to me was

Figure 1

Figure 19

. Not only does the graph show the progression of political polarization, but it uses

history as a way to further emphasize the effect of Bush. It is

very convincing to be able to visually see the progress of

polarization throughout presidencies, and historical records

play a very big role in making this possible. Although both

articles use visual representations, the psychology article uses

scientific studies connected to the human mind and behavior

to support their claim, while the history article uses historical timelines to support their claim.

How evidence is presented in both these articles drastically affects the impact of the author's

claims. This is seen with the empathic concern articles having a more general focus on the cause

of political polarization, while the Bush Effect focuses on a more specific historical instance.

8 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
9 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006 (Ameircan National Election Studies)
Differing Tone and Jargon

When discussing different disciplines there is often a very different tone and jargon, as

there is often a very different target audience. The Jargon in the psychology article consists of

complex terminology, and psychological jargon some examples being “SCHADENFREUDE”

“dispositional empathy” Salient group identities”10. The implementation of this specific

physiology jargon emphasizes the target audience being people who have an understanding of

psychology and who will understand this jargon. Different jargon is seen in the history article

which has a much more focus on the intersection between politics and history creating consistent

references to political and historical jargon.This is specifically seen with “the rational choice

theory of turnout proposed by Anthony Downs: polarization energizes voters and stimulates

participation”11. The use of rational choice theory, a political science term being applied to the

modern political history of the Bush election, emphasizes this intersection between political

polarization and history. This highlights the audience being both historians and political

scientists, to which various jargon in both disciplines is used. The diffeiring jargon empahsize

the psychology focus on the human mind, while the historical focus on specific instances from

the Bush Presidnecy.

Furthermore, the psychology article has a more challenging tone towards previous

scientific studies specifically challenging the positive effects of empathy “While the experience

of empathy toward an individual or group can reduce bias in some circumstances, individuals in

the real world may rarely place themselves in situations that would encourage them to do so” 12.

The history article consists of a much more informative and argumentative tone. An example of

this is seen in “ In the 2004 presidential election, Americans were closely divided, but they were

10 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019

11 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
12 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
not ambivalent or uncertain about George W. Bush”13. It is clear that not only are the authors

informing the reader of the political climate during this time, but argue how Americans felt about

George W Bush. These differing tones highlight the different approaches between these

academic disciplines . Phsychogly focuses on political polrorizations connection to the human

mind and behavior with empatehtic concern, while history establishes the historical context for

the Bush Presidency and its connection to political polarization.

Organizational Structure

The organizational structure within both of these articles is drastically different with one

having much more of a scientific presentation, and the history article having a much more typical

story structure. The subheadings in the psychology article consist of “connecting empathy and

polarization” as the initial subheading, followed by two studies the first being “ Study 1: affect

and social distance”This is followed by “ Study 2: Censorship and Schadenfreude”14. The authors

present this structure in the introduction as “First, using a large, national sample…..Second,

using an experimental design”15. This article uses a scientific structure with samples, studies and

experimental designs all aligning with the discipline of physcholgy. This is in stark contrast to

the history article not even explicitly stating the structure in the introduction. Furthermore, the

history article has more playful and catchy subheadings like “George W. Bush: From Uniter to

Divider”16. This differing organizational structure especially with subheadings emphasizes how

although these different disciplines discuss the same topic, the impact and message conveyed is

very different.

13 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
14 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
15 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
16 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
 The Introduction and conclusion in both articles are very important to establishing

foundational knowledge and tying all the points together. In “How Empathetic Concern Drives

Political Polarization”17 one distinct aspect was the use of pathos specifically seen with

“psychology research demonstrates that feelings of empathic concern for a member of a

stigmatized group, such as a homeless person”18 Additionally there is also a heavy amount of

references to previous studies, as a way to lay groundwork for their findings. Both of these

aspects were not seen as much in “The Bush Effect: polarization, turnout, and Activism in the

2004 presidential election."19. This history article spent much more time setting the scene and

providing historical context for the Bush presidency. These introductive differences highlight the

diffrent focuses in each of these articles, especially physcholgies connection to the human mind

and body.

Now although the introduction differs one aspect of the structure is the same which is the

last subheading before the conclusion presetning a question in both articles. In “How

Empathetic Concern Drives Political Polarization” the question of “PERSPECTIVE-TAKING

TO THE RESCUE?”20 is proposed. In the history article the question of “Did Bush Benefit from

the Politics of Division?”21 is proposed. This similarity I believe demonstrates the author's goal to

get the reader thinking about the topic of the paper, after what they have read. It almost continues

to hook the reader in and make the article more engaging. Now although this structural similarity

takes place with both articles there is a wide variety of differences with subheadings and

introductions that represent the difference in approaches and focus for these academic

disciplines.

17 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019

18 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
19 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
20 Simas , Clifford , Kirkland ,2019
21 Abramowitz,Stone, 2006
Conclusion

Overall, although both articles focus on political polarization the discipline in which it is

explored affects the presentation of evidence, tone/jargon, and organizational structure. In “How

Empathetic Concern Drives Political Polarization” evidence is much more scientific with a focus

on the human mind and body. In “The Bush Effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in the

2004 presidential election” evidence uses historical timelines to support the claims. Additionally,

tone and jargon employ the different scholarly communities to which these articles are tailored.

Lastly, the organizational structure specifically with subheadings and the introductive employs

the different setup that is within each article. Overall psychology attempts to understand the

cause of political polarization in terms of the human mind while history looks at the cause of

political polarization through specific instances in the past.

 Bibiliography

Simas , Elizabeth N, Scott Clifford , and Justin H . Kirkland. “How Empathic Concern Fuels
Political Polarization.” American Political Science Review 114, no. October 31, 2019 : 258–69.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000534.

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Walter J. Stone. "The Bush effect: polarization, turnout, and activism in
the 2004 presidential election." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 2 (June 2006): 141+. Gale
In Context: Biography(accessed January 31, 2024).
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A147615306/BIC?u=ucsantabarbara&sid=bookmark-
BIC&xid=39b4e7b7.