CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracyPolitical Conflict and Governance

Patterns of affective polarization toward parties and leaders across the democratic world

Open access
REILJAN, ANDRES, GARZIA, DIEGO, FERREIRA DA SILVA, FREDERICO, TRECHSEL, ALEXANDER H.·2024·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s0003055423000485
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research indicates that affective polarization pervades contemporary democracies worldwide. Although some studies identify party leaders as polarizing agents, affective polarization has been predominantly conceptualized as a product of in-/out-party feelings. This study compares levels of party affective polarization (PAP) and leader affective polarization (LAP) cross-nationally, using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Applying like–dislike scales and an identical index to both concepts, we reveal that while the two strongly correlate, LAP is systematically lower than PAP. The United States emerges as an exceptional case, being the only country where LAP significantly exceeds PAP. Drawing on regime input/output and institutions as theoretical building blocks, we explore cross-national variations and show that the relative strength of LAP vis-à-vis PAP is increased by presidential regime type, poor government performance, and low party system fragmentation. The findings of this study contribute to the thriving research on affective polarization and personalization of politics.

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 · 10.1017/s0003055423000485

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Weighting each party's measure of affect based on its relative size within the electoral system (e.g., by vote share) is beneficial for measuring affective polarization in a comparative perspective.

    “Scholars consequently have suggested weighting each party's measure of affect based on its relative size within the electoral systemfor example, by vote share (Garzia et al., 2023;Reiljan, 2020;Reiljan et al., 2024;Wagner, 2021).This approach is also beneficial in cases where researchers want to measure affective polarization in a comparative perspective (e.g.Reiljan et al., 2024).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Reiljan et al., 2024

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: 52

  1. Auter, Zachary J., and Jeffrey A. Fine. 2016. "Negative Campaigning in the Social Media Age: Attack Advertising on Facebook." Political Behavior 38 (4): 999-1020.
  2. Barisione, Mauro. 2017. "The Partisan Gap in Leader Support and Attitude Polarization in a Campaign Environment: The Cases of Germany and Italy." International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29 (4): 604-30.
  3. Boxell, Levi, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2022. "Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization". The Review of Economics and Statistics 98: 701-12.
  4. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Curini, Luigi, and Airo Hino. 2012. "Missing Links in Party-System Polarization: How Institutions and Voters Matter." The Journal of Politics 74 (2): 460-73.
  6. Dahlberg, Stefan, and Sören Holmberg. 2012. "Understanding Satisfaction with the Way Democracy Works." QoG Working Paper Series 2012 (8): 1-30.
  7. Dahlberg, Stefan, and Sören Holmberg. 2014. "Democracy and Bureaucracy: How Their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction." West European Politics 37 (3): 515-37.
  8. Dalton, Russell. 2008. "The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences." Comparative Political Studies 41 (7): 899-920.
  9. Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds. 2002. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Diermeier, Daniel, and Christopher Li. 2019. "Partisan Affect and Elite Polarization." American Political Science Review 113 (1): 277-81.
  11. Druckman, James N., and Matthew S. Levendusky. 2019. "What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?" Public Opinion Quarterly 83 (1): 114-22.
  12. Elgie, Robert. 2007. "Varieties of Semi-Presidentialism and Their Impact on Nascent Democracies." Taiwan Journal of Democracy 3 (2): 53-71.
  13. Esen, Berk, and Sebnem Gumuscu. 2018. "The Perils of 'Turkish Presidentialism'." Review of Middle East Studies 52 (1): 43-53.
  14. Ferreira da Silva, Frederico. 2021. "Party Organizational Change and Leader Effects on Voting Behavior: Linking the Electoral and Party Faces of Presidentialization." Party Politics 27 (4): 803-13.
  15. Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  16. Garzia, Diego, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, and Andrea De Angelis. 2022. "Partisan Dealignment and the Personalisation of Politics in West European Parliamentary Democracies, 1961-2018." West European Politics 45 (2): 311-34.
  17. Geer, John G. 2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  18. Gidron, Noam, James Adams, and Will Horne. 2022. "Who Dislikes Whom? Affective Polarization between Pairs of Parties in Western Democracies." British Journal of Political Science, 1-19. doi: 10.1017/S0007123422000394. · DOI
  19. Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization." American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619-31.
  20. Hetherington, Marc J., and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2015. Why Washington Won't Work: Polarization, Political Trust and the Governing Crisis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  21. Kingzette, Jon. 2021. "Who Do You Loathe? Feelings toward Politicians vs. Ordinary People in the Opposing Party." Journal of Experimental Political Science 8 (1): 75-84.
  22. Knudsen, Erik. 2021. "Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems? Comparing Affective Polarization Towards Voters and Parties in Norway and the United States." Scandinavian Political Studies 44 (1): 34-44.
  23. Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. "'Effective' Number of Parties: a Measure With Application to West Europe." Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3-27.
  24. Langer, Ana Inés. 2007. "A Historical Exploration of the Personalisation of Politics in the Print Media: The British Prime Ministers (1945-1999)." Parliamentary Affairs 60 (3): 371-87.
  25. Lelkes, Yphtach. 2021. "Policy Over Party: Comparing the Effects of Candidate Ideology and Party on Affective Polarization." Political Science Research and Methods 9 (1): 189-96.
  26. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  27. Lijphart, Arend. 2008. Thinking About Democracy. Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
  28. Linz, Juan J. 1990. "The Perils of Presidentialism." Journal of Democracy 1 (1): 51-69.
  29. Lobo, Marina Costa, and John Curtice, eds. 2014. Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  30. Mason, Lilliana. 2015. "'I Disrespectfully Agree': The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization." American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128-45.
  31. McCoy, Jennifer, and Murat Somer. 2019. "Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How it Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681 (1): 234-71.
  32. Medeiros, Mike, and Alain Noël. 2014. "The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo- American Democracies." Comparative Political Studies 47 (7): 1022-46.
  33. Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2018. "Studying Populism in Comparative Perspective: Reflections on the Contemporary and Future Research Agenda." Comparative Political Studies 51 (13): 1667-93.
  34. Orr, Lilla V., and Gregory A. Huber. 2020. "The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States." American Journal of Political Science 64 (3): 569-86.
  35. Petrocik, John R. 2009. "Measuring Party Support: Leaners are not Independents." Electoral Studies 28 (4): 562-72.
  36. Poguntke, Thomas, Susan E. Scarrow, and Paul Webb. 2017. "Political Party Organizations." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.227. · DOI
  37. Poguntke, Thomas, and Paul Webb, eds. 2007. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Pruysers, Scott, and William Cross. 2016. "Research Note: 'Negative' Personalization: Party Leaders and Party Strategy." Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 49 (3): 539-58.
  39. Rahat, Gideon, and Ofer Kenig. 2018. From Party Politics to Personalized Politics? Party Change and Political Personalization in Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Reiljan, Andres, and Alexander Ryan. 2021. "Ideological Tripolarization, Partisan Tribalism and Institutional Trust: the Foundations of Affective Polarization in the Swedish Multiparty System." Scandinavian Political Studies 44 (2): 195-219.
  41. Ruckelshaus, Jay. 2022. "What Kind of Identity is Partisan Identity? "Social" versus "Political" Partisanship in Divided Democracies." American Political Science Review 116 (4): 1477-89.
  42. Rudolph, Thomas J., and Marc J. Hetherington. 2021. "Affective Polarization in Political and Nonpolitical Settings." International Journal of Public Opinion Research 33(3): 591-606.
  43. Sears, David O. 1983. "The Person-Positivity Bias." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (2): 233.
  44. Shugart, Matthew S. 2005. "Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns." French Politics 3 (3): 323-51.
  45. Shugart, Matthew S. 2006. "Comparative Executive-Legislative Relations." In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, eds.
  46. Rod Rhodes, Sarah Binder and Bert A. Rockman, 344-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2020. CSES Integrated Module Dataset Phase 3 Release [Dataset and Documentation]. December 8, 2020 version. doi: 10.7804/cses.imd.2020-12-08. www.cses.org. The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. 2022. CSES Module 5 Fourth Advanced Release [Dataset and Documentation]. March 1, 2022 version. doi: 10.7804/cses.module5.2022-03-01. www.cses.org. · DOI
  48. Torcal, Mariano, and Alexander H. Trechsel. 2016. "Explaining Citizens' Evaluations of Democracy." In How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy, eds. Mónica Ferrín, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 206-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Valli, Chiara, and Alessandro Nai. 2020. "Attack Politics from Albania to Zimbabwe: A Large-Scale Comparative Study on the Drivers of Negative Campaigning." International Political Science Review 43 (5): 680-96.
  50. van Biezen, Ingrid, and Thomas Poguntke. 2014. "The Decline of Membership-Based Politics." Party Politics 20 (2): 205-16.
  51. Wagner, Alexander F., Friedrich Schneider, and Martin Halla. 2009. "The Quality of Institutions and Satisfaction With Democracy in Western Europe-A Panel Analysis." European Journal of Political Economy 25 (1): 30-41.
  52. Webster, Steven W., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 2017. "The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the US Electorate." American Politics Research 45 (4): 621-47.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
REILJAN, A., GARZIA, D., FERREIRA DA SILVA, F., & TRECHSEL, A. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Tartu (EE)
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
  • University of Lucerne (CH)
Corresponding author
  • REILJAN, ANDRES
  • GARZIA, DIEGO
  • TRECHSEL, ALEXANDER H.
ORCID
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2023-06-29
Volume
118
Issue
2
Pages
654-670
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s0003055423000485
OpenAlex
W4382560490
Cited by
98
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 4
FWCI
96.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Cadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (186898)
  • Eesti Teadusagentuur (MOBJD607)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
affective polarization, party leaders, personalization of politics, presidentialism, government performance, party fragmentation, cross-national comparison

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