In a groundbreaking study published in the esteemed journal Social Forces, political scientist Seth Warner from the University of Connecticut presents compelling evidence that partisan animosity is not merely a peripheral factor but a central catalyst behind protest participation in the United States. The research shifts the conventional understanding of political protests by elucidating how negative emotions toward opposing political parties can mobilize individuals as powerfully as, or even more than, passion for the issues themselves. By meticulously analyzing data from three nationally representative surveys conducted between 2014 and 2022, Warner unveils the intense influence of interparty hostility across the spectrum of American social movements.
Warner’s investigation draws upon three distinct protest movements—the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement centered on racial justice, the climate movement focused on environmental concerns, and the conservative Tea Party movement emphasizing government distrust. Each survey corresponds to one of these movements, capturing the diverse ideological and issue-driven landscapes of recent U.S. protests. The methodology entailed matching survey questions directly to core grievances specific to each movement, such as perceptions of racial inequality in the case of BLM, or skepticism of governmental institutions within the Tea Party base. This nuanced framework allowed Warner to isolate and quantify the extent to which partisan hostility, rather than only substantive issue concern, motivates protest behavior.
One of the most striking revelations of this study is the magnitude of hostility directed toward opposing political parties as a predictor of protest involvement. When respondents’ attitudes toward the rival party were assessed alongside their dedication to the movement’s core issues, animosity emerged as an equally significant, and at times superior, mobilizing force. This pattern was particularly pronounced within the climate movement, where negative feelings toward the Republican Party consistently outpaced even personal alarm about climate change in predicting protest participation. This suggests that protest activity is as much about opposing the ‘other side’ as it is about championing specific policies.
Warner explains this phenomenon by arguing that “partisan animosity isn’t just background noise, it’s a key reason people show up to protest.” The emotional charge of anger at opposing parties can activate individuals to take action, converting political rivalry into street-level mobilization. This insight challenges traditional models that frame protest involvement solely as a rational response to policy concerns, highlighting instead the profound emotional and social dynamics underpinning contemporary political engagement.
Beyond individual attitudes, the study also highlights the critical role of context, revealing that the political environment where individuals reside substantially shapes their protest propensity. Living in counties or communities characterized by high overall partisan animosity was linked to increased likelihood of protest participation across the board, independent of personal ideology or specific issue commitments. This spatial dynamic underscores how localized political climates, saturated with conflict and hostility, can elevate perceptions of threat and urgency, thus spurring collective action.
Intriguingly, Warner’s analysis finds that exposure to hostility from out-party members—those ideologically opposed—is an even stronger motivator than being surrounded by like-minded allies. The presence of antagonism in one’s social and political environment appears to heighten feelings of being under siege or politically besieged, prompting greater willingness to publicly demonstrate and protest. This dynamic emphasizes the reciprocal nature of partisan conflict, where opposition does not merely discourage dissent but paradoxically fuels it.
These findings carry broad implications for how scholars, policymakers, and the public understand the surge in protest activity witnessed in the U.S. over the past decade. Rather than viewing protests solely as expressions of grievance about policies or social injustices, Warner’s work positions partisan hostility as a parallel and potent force driving political participation. This reconceptualization sheds light on the polarizing effects of American political culture, and the ways in which interparty animus has become imbricated with forms of civic activism.
Furthermore, this study suggests that attempts to address divisiveness and promote dialogue may need to contend not only with ideological differences but also with the deep emotional antagonisms that translate into mobilization. If protests are indeed vehicles for rejecting adversarial political parties as much as platforms for change on specific issues, this may complicate strategies aimed at framing protest movements as primarily constructive forces for policy reform.
Warner’s research employs a rigorous data and statistical analysis approach, using nationally representative samples to enhance the generalizability of his findings. The surveys spanning nearly a decade enable a comprehensive temporal view of shifting dynamics within key protest movements and the broader American political landscape. This longitudinal perspective is crucial in capturing evolving trends in partisan affect and mobilization tactics across different social and political moments.
The scholarship advances the field of political sociology by providing empirical substantiation for the often-discussed but under-measured role of affective polarization in political behavior. It invites further studies into how emotional and social psychological factors dovetail with structural inequalities and political opportunity to shape protest participation. Moreover, the intersection of individual attitudes with local contextual variables opens pathways for more granular research into the geography of political conflict and mobilization.
By revealing the extent to which protests serve as a venue for expressing partisan opposition, Warner’s study prompts a rethink of modern democratic engagement. Political contestation in the United States is no longer confined to legislative chambers or electoral booths; it has robustly entered public spaces and demonstrations, fueled by animosity as much as by ideology. This transformation underscores both the vitality and volatility of contemporary American democracy.
In conclusion, this innovative study sheds new light on the complex interplay of partisan emotions, issue advocacy, and environmental context in driving protest participation. As the United States continues to grapple with polarized politics, understanding the role of partisan animosity offers critical insights into the motivations fueling public dissent and collective action. Warner’s findings illuminate the emotional foundations of protest, inviting us to reconsider the nature of political engagement in an era marked by deep divisions and fierce mobilization.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Partisan Animosity and Protest Participation in the United States
News Publication Date: 15-Jul-2025
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf066
Keywords: Partisan animosity, protest participation, political polarization, Black Lives Matter, climate movement, Tea Party, political behavior, affective polarization, social movements, political mobilization
