Cited by 70Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

Camps, not just parties. The dynamic foundations of affective polarization in multi‐party systems

Open access
Bantel, Ivo·2023·Electoral Studies

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102614

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bantel, I.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
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
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