Cited by 62Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

Polarisation, identity and affect - conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems

Open access
Röllicke, Lena·2023·Electoral Studies

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to the nascent field of research on affective polarisation in liberal democracies by reflecting on the conceptual ambiguities as well as potentials inherent in the concept. Based on a systematic, critical review of 78 articles, I discuss three main ambiguities in the current literature on affective polarisation in multi-party democracies. Those concern firstly, the object of dislike; secondly, the nature of dislike; and thirdly, how to make sense of the concept of “polarisation” in the context of affective polarisation. I then propose to use the existing ambiguities as a basis to work towards a more nuanced conceptualisation of affective polarisation which allows us to distinguish it from neighbouring concepts and to further differentiate between different constellations and degrees of affective polarisation. I conclude by arguing in favour of taking a broader approach to studying affective polarisation than done so far, and by suggesting some directions for future research.

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.2023.102655

Cites

99 of 106 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?

  • Until recently, cross-national studies were more likely to rely on the likes/dislikes measure, while social distance and trait measures were more likely to be included in single-country studies.

    “Until recently, however, data availability has meant that cross-national studies were more likely to rely on the likes/dislikes measure, while social distance and trait measures were more likely to be included in single-country studies (Röllicke, 2023).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Röllicke, 2023

  • The benefit of the likes/dislikes measure is that it has been included in large surveys, offering both longitudinal and cross-national data.

    “Parallel to the use of the thermometer scale in American studies, the benefit of the likes/dislikes measure is that it has been included in large surveys, offering both longitudinal (Wagner, 2024) and crossnational data (Röllicke, 2023).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Röllicke, 2023

  • Measures of likes/dislikes capture different aspects of affective polarization than do measures of social distance and traits.

    “Just as in the American context, measures of likes/dislikes capture different aspects of affective polarization than do measures of social distance and traits (Röllicke, 2023;Wagner, 2024).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Röllicke, 2023

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: 11

  1. Allport, G.W., 1985. The Nature of Prejudice (Reprint). Addison-Wesley. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-3794(2300077-X/sref6)
  2. Bartle, J., Bellucci, P., 2009. Introduction. Partisanship, social identity and individual attitudes. In: Bartle, J., Bellucci, P. (Eds.), Political Parties and Partisanship. Social Identity and Individual Attitudes. Routledge, pp. 1 -25. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203884454.
  3. Bonansinga, D., 2020. Who Thinks, Feels. The Relationship between Emotions, Politics and Populism. Partecipazione e Conflitto 13 (1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1285/ I20356609V13I1P83.
  4. Downs, A., 1954. An Economic Theory of Democracy (Reprint). Addison Wesley. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-3794(2300077-X/sref32)
  5. Garzia, D., Ferreira da Silva, F., 2022, May 20-21. Magnitude and Direction: the Bidimensional Nature of Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective. Workshop ' Affective Polarization: A Challenge for Electoral Democracy ' , Paris. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-3794(2300077-X/sref39)
  6. Harteveld, E., Berntzen, L.E., Kokkonen, A., Kelsall, H., Linde, J., Dahlberg, S., 2022, August. 22-26. The Consequences of Affective Polarization. A Survey Experiment in 9 Countries. ECPR General Conference, Innsbruck. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-3794(2300077-X/sref50)
  7. Mayer, S.J., Russo, L., 2022. Measuring negative partisanship in multi-party systems: a two country validation study. SocArXiv. October 29. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf. io/nc2fz. · DOI
  8. Mel ´ endez, C., 2022. The post-partisans: anti-partisans, anti-establishment identifiers, and apartisans in Latin America. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781108694308.
  9. Rose, R., Mishler, W., 1998. Negative and positive party identification in postCommunist countries. Elect. Stud. 17 (2), 217 -234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S02613794(98)00016-X. · DOI
  10. Schwander, H., Schieferdecker, D., Hutter, S., Specht, J., 2022, May. 20-21. Linking Structural Divides and Political Organization: Affective Polarization between Opinion-Based Groups in a Globalized Era. Workshop ' Affective Polarization: A Challenge for Electoral Democracy ' . Paris. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-3794(2300077-X/sref122)
  11. Slaby, J., von Scheve, C., 2019. In: Slaby, J., von Scheve, C. (Eds.), Affective Societies: Key Concepts, first ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351039260. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Röllicke, L.
Affiliations
WZB Berlin Social Science Center (DE)
Corresponding author
Röllicke, Lena
Venue
Electoral Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-10
Volume
85
Pages
102655
ISSN
0261-3794 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385911858
Cited by
62
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 3
FWCI
60.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Electoral Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (390,715,649)
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, multiparty system, political identity, affect, dislike, liberal democracy

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