Camps, not just parties. The dynamic foundations of affective polarization in multi‐party systems
Open accessAbstract
Concerns over affective polarization in Western democracies are growing. But which broader political distinctions are also affective demarcations? As inter-party cooperation is the rule in multi-party democracies, explaining affective polarization beyond partisan divisions is crucial. I argue that demarcations between political camps deepen affective polarization, and country-level factors influence the relevance of these affective divides. Based on survey data from 23 Western democracies (1996–2019), I demonstrate that affect is most polarized between Left and Right camps, and between the Radical Right and other camps. Further, these divides are dynamic and depend on different country-level outcomes. The Left/Right divide disappears when Left and Right parties govern together, while the Radical Right divide is fortified with Radical Right electoral success. These findings highlight that affective polarization’s group foundations extend beyond partisanship, and that affective polarization could even act as a defence mechanism against radical challengers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Multiparty systems may lead to divisions that are much more salient than those within a single party.
“It is possible that multiparty systems may lead to divisions that are much more salient than those within a single party (Bantel, 2023;Comellas & Torcal, 2023).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Bantel, 2023
Cites
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems
Wagner, M. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Reiljan, A. (2020) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12351 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
Ticking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization
Harteveld, E. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102337 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Mass Partisan Polarization: Measuring a Relational Concept
Lauka, A., McCoy, J., & Firat, R. B. (2018) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764218759581 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Establishing the construct and predictive validity of brief measures of affective polarization
Kasper, J., Schumacher, G., & Bakker, B. N. (2025) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.70022 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Our results are in line with recent approaches of conceptualizing affective polarization through political camps or blocs, showing that complete party representation is not necessary for valid measures (Bantel, 2023; Kekkonen & Ylä-Anttila, 2021).”
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bantel, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Bantel, Ivo
- ORCID
- Bantel, Ivo
- Venue
- Electoral Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-06
- Volume
- 83
- Pages
- 102614
- ISSN
- 0261-3794 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4366980045
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 68.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Electoral Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Universität Zürich
- 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, political camps, multiparty system, interparty cooperation, left-right divide, radical right, coalition government, country-level factors, political 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