CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

Ticking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization

Open access
Harteveld, Eelco·2021·Electoral Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102337
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study explores whether, in societies around the world, affective polarization – or animosity between citizens based on their political allegiance – is stronger if political divisions align with non-political ones. Such ‘social sorting’ has earlier been established to foster affective polarization in the United States. In this study, I argue that the underlying mechanism travels across the globe. I then present two complementary studies which confirm this hypothesis. First, I employ CSES data to predict the level of affective polarization by social sorting at 119 elections in 40 countries, showing that greater alignment of partisan divisions with non-political divisions in a society (along the lines of income, education, religion and region) is associated with stronger dislike towards political outgroups. Second, using Dutch panel data, I show that individuals who fit the socio-demographic ‘profile’ of their party better tend to be more affectively polarized. This has important implications for our understanding of affective polarization.

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.2021.102337

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Growing sorting of social identities and ideological positions within party groups reduces cross-cutting identities, increases intragroup homogeneity, and exacerbates the sensation of intergroup estrangement.

    “a) the grow-ing sorting of social identities and ideological positions within party groups, which reduces cross-cutting identities, increases intragroup homogeneity, and exacerbates the sensation of intergroup estrangement (Mason, 2018;Harteveld, 2021)”

    From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Harteveld, 2021

    Sections 1 and 2.2 describe how alignment of political and non-political identities reduces cross-cutting identities and makes political groups appear more distinct and homogeneous, fostering negative feelings toward outgroups. The claim presents this as a causal effect, whereas section 2.2 says the paper's observational data cannot establish causal direction with certainty. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • More ideological distance from a candidate or party increases affective polarization.

    “This hypothesis combines findings indicating that more ideological distance from a candidate or party increases affective polarization (Rogowski & Sutherland, 2016;Harteveld, 2021;Ryan, 2023) with research on partisan bias since the ideological distance is perceived and not actual in this case.”

    From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Harteveld, 2021

    Section 4.4.2 (page unavailable) reports that greater ideological polarization among parties predicts greater affective polarization within countries. But the paper does not establish that an individual’s ideological distance from a candidate or party increases their affective polarization; Section 2.1 describes the individual-level evidence as mixed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Brandt, M., Turner-Zwinkels, F.M., 2020. Proximity to the July 4th Holiday Does Not Affect Affective Polarization. Working paper available at DOI 10.31234/osf.io/ 7yqkd. · DOI
  2. Carlin, R.E., Singer, M.M., Zechmeister, E.J. (Eds.), 2015. The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts. University of Michigan Press.
  3. Huddy, L., Bankert, A., Davies, C.L., 2018. Expressive vs. Instrumental partisanship in multi-party European systems. Polit. Psychol. 39 (51), 173-199.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harteveld, E.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Harteveld, Eelco
ORCID
Harteveld, Eelco
Venue
Electoral Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
72
Pages
102337
ISSN
0261-3794 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102337
OpenAlex
W3166378699
Cited by
120
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2020: 1
FWCI
51.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Electoral Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016)
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 › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
affective polarization, social sorting, partisan divisions, cross-national comparison, party identification, social cleavages

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