CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Fragmented foes: Affective polarization in the multiparty context of The Netherlands

Open access
Harteveld, Eelco·2021·Electoral Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102332
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Affective polarization, or antipathy between the supporters of opposing political camps, is documented to be on the rise in the United States and elsewhere. At the same time, there are limits to our understanding of this phenomenon in multiparty contexts. How do citizens draw the line between 'ingroups' and 'outgroups' in fragmented contexts with multiple parties? Answering this question has been hampered by a relative lack of data on citizens' views towards compatriots with opposing political views outside the US. This study is based on original data collection, measuring citizens’ evaluations of various political and non-political outgroups among a population-representative sample of 1071 Dutch citizens. These data allow to study the extent and configuration of affective polarization in the highly fragmented context of the Netherlands. The analysis shows that respondents do distinguish between parties and partisans. They report more dislike towards political outgroups than towards almost all non-political outgroups. Rather than disliking all out-partisans equally, evaluations grow gradually colder as ideological distance towards a group increases. Affective polarization is especially strong between those who disagree on cultural issues, and between those who support and oppose the populist radical right. The article discusses how these findings enhance our understanding of affective polarization in multiparty systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102332

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Measuring affective polarization becomes significantly more complex in multiparty contexts.

    “Measuring affective polarization, however, becomes significantly more complex in multiparty contexts (Garzia et al., 2023;Harteveld, 2021;Reiljan, 2020;Tichelbaecker et al., 2023;Wagner, 2021).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Harteveld, 2021

  • More recent studies in multi-party contexts have turned to question wording that specifies affect for supporters of a particular party.

    “Refining the measure, more recent studies in multi-party contexts have turned to question wording that specifies affect for supporters of a particular party (Harteveld, 2021;Torcal & Thomson, 2023).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Harteveld, 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Bankert, A., Huddy, L., Rosema, M., 2017. Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Polit. Behav. 39 (1), 103-132.
  2. Adams, James, De Vries, Catherine E., Leiter, Debra, 2012. Subconstituency Reactions to Elite Depolarization in the Netherlands: An Analysis of the Dutch Public's Policy Beliefs and Partisan Loyalties, 1986-98. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 42 (1), 81-105.
  3. Blinder, Scott, Ford, Robert, Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth, 2013. The Better Angels of Our Nature: How the Antiprejudice Norm Affects Policy and Party Preferences in Great Britain and Germany. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57 (4), 841-857.
  4. Brewer, M.B., 1999. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues 55 (3), 429-444.
  5. Dahlberg, S., 2009. Political parties and perceptual agreement: the influence of party related factors on voters' perceptions in proportional electoral systems. Elect. Stud. 28 (2), 270-278.
  6. Devine, C.J., 2015. Ideological social identity: psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Polit. Behav. 37 (3), 509-535.
  7. De Vries, C.E., 2018. The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: changing patterns of party and electoral competition in The Netherlands and beyond. J. Eur. Publ. Pol. 25 (11), 1541-1565.
  8. Druckman, J.N., Levendusky, M.S., 2019. What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Publ. Opin. Q. 83 (1), 114-122.
  9. Garry, J., 2007. Making 'party identification' more versatile: operationalising the concept for the multiparty setting. Elect. Stud. 26 (2), 346-358.
  10. Gidron, N., Adams, J., Horne, W., 2019. Who dislikes whom? The drivers of affective polarization in multi-party systems. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.
  11. Gidron, N., Adams, J., Horne, W., 2020. American Affective Polarization In Comparative Perspective (Elements in American Politics). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  12. Greene, S., 2004. Social identity theory and party identification. Soc. Sci. Q. 85 (1), 136-153.
  13. Harteveld, E., Dahlberg, S., Kokkonen, A., van der Brug, W., 2019. Social stigma and support for the populist radical right: an experimental study. Scand. Polit. Stud. 42 (3-4), 296-307.
  14. Helbling, M., Jungkunz, S., 2020. Social divides in the age of globalization. W. Eur. Polit. 43 (6), 1187-1210.
  15. Hetherington, Marc J., Rudolph, Thomas J., 2015. Why Washington Won't Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. University of Chicago Press.
  16. Hobolt, Sara, Leeper, Thomas J., Tilley, James, 2020. Divided by the vote: affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum. Br. J. Polit. Sci. Available online In press.
  17. Hogg, M.A., 2003. Intergroup relations. In: Delamater, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 479-501.
  18. Johnston, C.D., Wronski, J., 2015. Personality dispositions and political preferences across hard and easy issues. Polit. Psychol. 36 (1), 35-53.
  19. Kalmoe, N.P., Mason, L., 2018. Lethal mass partisanship: prevalence, correlates, and electoral contingencies. Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.
  20. Lijphart, Arend, 1968. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  21. Malka, A., Lelkes, Y., 2010. More than ideology: conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Soc. Justice Res. 23 (2-3), 156-188.
  22. Mason, L., 2016. A cross-cutting calm: how social sorting drives affective polarization. Publ. Opin. Q. 80 (1), 351-377.
  23. McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., Levendusky, M., 2018. The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 62 (1), 5-18.
  24. McCoy, J., Rahman, T., Somer, M., 2018. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. Am. Behav. Sci. 62 (1), 16-42.
  25. Moffitt, B., 2018. The populism/anti-populism divide in western Europe. Democratic Theory 5 (2), 1-16.
  26. Mudde, C., 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Roccas, S., Brewer, M.B., 2002. Social identity complexity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6 (2), 88-106.
  28. Strickler, R., 2018. Deliberate with the enemy? Polarization, social identity, and attitudes toward disagreement. Polit. Res. Q. 71 (1), 3-18.
  29. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W. G., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 33-47. Brooks/ Cole.
  30. Walter, A.S., Van der Brug, W., 2013. When the gloves come off: inter-party variation in negative campaigning in Dutch elections, 1981-2010. Acta Politic. 48 (4), 367-388.
  31. Westwood, S.J., Iyengar, S., Walgrave, S., Leonisio, R., Miller, L., Strijbis, O., 2018. The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57 (2), 333-354.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harteveld, E.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Harteveld, Eelco
ORCID
Harteveld, Eelco
Venue
Electoral Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
71
Pages
102332
ISSN
0261-3794 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102332
OpenAlex
W3153185818
Cited by
179
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 6
FWCI
88.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Electoral Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Dutch Research Council
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2018\u201301468, 01468)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
affective polarization, multiparty system, political outgroups, partisanship, ideological distance, populist radical right, Dutch politics, intergroup attitudes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review