Cited by 57Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

Ideological identity, issue‐based ideology and bipolar affective polarization in multiparty systems: The cases of Argentina, Chile, Italy, Portugal and Spain

Open access
Comellas, Josep M., Torcal, Mariano·2023·Electoral Studies

Abstract

In multiparty contexts, we know that affective polarization tends to cluster in ideological blocs, although the factors driving this process are still quite unexplored. In this paper, we contribute to filling this gap in the literature by exploring the capacity of ideological identity vis-à-vis issue-based ideology to polarize sentiments towards party voters into two opposing left-right blocs. Specifically, we provide empirical evidence that affective attachments to ideological labels increase the affective distance between ideological blocs to a greater extent than issue extremity and issue consistency. These bipolarizing effects of ideological identity persist even when the identity is inconsistent with issue-based ideology. Additionally, we show that bipolar affective polarization exerts little reverse influence on ideological identity. We support these arguments using an original survey from the TRI-POL project carried out in five multiparty systems: Argentina, Chile, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

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.2023.102615

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • 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 Comellas & Torcal, 2023

    The Conclusions (pp. 9–10) describe voters in multiparty systems dividing into opposing affective blocs. The paper does not compare those divisions with divisions within a single party or establish that they are more salient. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

4 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Allport, G.W., 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge.
  2. Brussino, S.A., Imhoff, D.S., Paz García, A.P., Dreizik, M.A., Rabbia, H.H., 2016. What are left and right in Argentina? Cognitive squemas of citizens from Cordoba. Trends in Psychology 24 (4), 1249 -1264.
  3. Conover, P.J., Feldman, S., 1981. The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative selfidentifications. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 25 (4), 617 -645.
  4. Levendusky, M., 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservative Became Republicans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  5. Mason, L., 2018a. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Out Identity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  6. Sendra, M., Ortiz, P., 2022. Can Argentines Be Programmatic Voters? Assessing the Influence of Policy Preferences in Argentine Coalitions Using the Propensity to Vote ' . Revista de Ciencia Política. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718090x2022005000123 online. · DOI
  7. Thomassen, J. (Ed.), 2005. The European Voter: a Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Comellas, J. M., & Torcal, M.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
Corresponding author
Comellas, Josep M.
Venue
Electoral Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
83
Pages
102615
ISSN
0261-3794 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4362639735
Cited by
57
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5
FWCI
56.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Electoral Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Fundación BBVA
  • European Commission (501100011033, /AEI/10.13039/501100011033)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (10.13039, / AEI/10, PID2019, 501100011033, I00/AEI/10.13039, /AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033)
  • Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (501100011033, 10.13039/501100011033, 13039, 10.13039, AEI/10, PID2019)
  • NextGenerationEU
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, ideological identity, bipolarization, multiparty system, party voters

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