CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 496Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Divided by the vote: Affective polarization in the wake of the Brexit referendum

Open access
Hobolt, Sara B., Leeper, Thomas J., Tilley, James·2021·British Journal of Political Science
DOI 10.1017/s0007123420000125
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A well-functioning democracy requires a degree of mutual respect and a willingness to talk across political divides. Yet numerous studies have shown that many electorates are polarized along partisan lines, with animosity towards the partisan out-group. This article further develops the idea of affective polarization, not by partisanship, but instead by identification with opinion-based groups. Examining social identities formed during Britain's 2016 referendum on European Union membership, the study uses surveys and experiments to measure the intensity of partisan and Brexit-related affective polarization. The results show that Brexit identities are prevalent, felt to be personally important and cut across traditional party lines. These identities generate affective polarization as intense as that of partisanship in terms of stereotyping, prejudice and various evaluative biases, convincingly demonstrating that affective polarization can emerge from identities beyond partisanship.

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/s0007123420000125

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?

  • Focal issues and politicians can serve as key political dividing lines.

    “Focal issues-like, for example, Brexit in the United Kingdom (e.g., Hobolt et al., 2021) or vaccination status (Filsinger & Freitag, 2024;Wagner & Eberl, 2025)-can serve as key political dividing lines; so too can politicians-like, for example, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil (Areal, 2022).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Hobolt et al., 2021

  • Surveys in multi-party contexts have relied on social distance measures and trait ratings to broaden the measure of affective polarization to consider its social consequences.

    “Broadening the measure of affective polarization to consider its social consequences, surveys in multi-party contexts have also relied on social distance measures (e.g., Knudsen, 2021) and trait ratings (Hobolt et al., 2021).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Hobolt et al., 2021

  • In the UK Brexit referendum, high levels of affective polarization ensued.

    “Both sides exhibited ego-justifying and group-justifying biases that increased issue polarization on economic matters335, and high levels of affective polarization ensued336.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [336]

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: 75

  1. Achen, Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why elections do not produce responsive governments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. Anderson, Christopher J., Andre Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan and Ola Listhaug. 2005. Losers' Consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
  3. Auspurg, Katrin, and Thomas Hinz. 2014. Factorial Survey Experiments. Sage Publications.
  4. Bartle, John and Paolo Belluci. 2009. 'Partisanship, social identity and individual attitudes', in Bartle, John and Paolo Belluci, eds., Political Parties and Partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes. New York: Routledge.
  5. Becker, Sascha O., Thiemo Fetzer, and Dennis Novy. 2017. 'Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis.' Economic Policy 32(92): 601-650.
  6. Bisgaard, Martin. 2015. 'Bias will find a way: Economic perceptions, attributions of blame, and partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis.' Journal of Politics 77(3): 849-860.
  7. Bliuc, Ana-Maria, Craig McGarty, Katherine Reynolds, and Daniela Muntele. 2007. 'Opinion- based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action.' European Journal of Social Psychology 37(1): 19-32.
  8. Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1981. 'Issue evolution, population replacement, and normal partisan change.' American Political Science Review 75(1): 107-118.
  9. Clarke, Harold D., Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley. 2017. Brexit: Why Britain voted to leave the European Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Colantone, Italo, and Piero Stanig. 2018. "Global competition and Brexit." American Political Science Review 112.2: 201-218.
  11. Converse, Philip. 1964. 'The nature of belief systems in mass publics', in Apter, David, ed. Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.
  12. Criado, Henar, Francisco Herreros, Luis Miller, and Paloma Ubeda. 2018. 'The unintended consequences of political mobilization on trust: The case of the secessionist process in Catalonia.' Journal of Conflict Resolution 62 (2): 231-253.
  13. Curtice, John. 2017a. 'Why Leave won the UK's EU referendum.' Journal of Common Market Studies 55(S1): 19-37.
  14. Curtice, John. 2017b. 'General Election 2017: A new two party politics?' Political Insight 8(2): 4-8.
  15. Cutts, David, Matthew Goodwin, Oliver Heath, Paula Surridge (2020), 'Brexit, the 2019 General Election and the realignment of British politics', Political Quarterly (forthcoming).
  16. De Boef, Suzanna, and Paul M. Kellstedt. 2004. 'The political (and economic) origins of consumer confidence.' American Journal of Political Science 48: 633-49.
  17. Dryzek, John S. and Simon Niemeyer. 2006. 'Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals.' American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 634-649.
  18. Enns, Peter K., Paul M. Kellstedt and Gregory E. McAvoy. 2012, 'The consequences of partisanship in economic perceptions.' Public Opinion Quarterly 76(2): 287-310
  19. Evans, Geoffrey, and James Tilley. 2017. The New Politics of Class: The political exclusion of the British working class. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  20. Evans, Geoffrey, and Mark Pickup. 2010. 'Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000-2004 U.S. Presidential cycle.' Journal of Politics 72(4): 1236-51.
  21. Ford, Robert, and Matthew Goodwin. 2017. 'Britain after Brexit: A nation divided.' Journal of Democracy 28: 17-30.
  22. Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. 'Political polarization in the American public.' Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563-588.
  23. Gallego, Aina, and Paul Marx. 2017. 'Multi-dimensional preferences for labour market reforms: a conjoint experiment.' Journal of European Public Policy, 24(7): 1027-1047
  24. Garry, John, Michael Marsh, and Richard Sinnott. 2005. '"Second-order" versus "Issue- voting" Effects in EU Referendums: evidence from the Irish nice treaty referendums.' European Union Politics 6(2): 201-221.
  25. Goodwin, Matthew J., and Oliver Heath. 2016. 'The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: an aggregate-level analysis of the result.' Political Quarterly 87(3): 323-332.
  26. Green, Donald P., Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2004 Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
  27. Greene, Steven. 2000. 'The psychological sources of partisan-leaning independence.' American Politics Quarterly 28(4): 511-537.
  28. Hainmueller, Jens and Daniel J. Hopkins. 2015. 'The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants.' American Journal of Political Science 59: 529-48.
  29. Heath, Oliver, and Matthew Goodwin. 2017. 'The 2017 General Election, Brexit and the return to two-party politics: An aggregate-level analysis of the result.' Political Quarterly 88(3): 345-358.
  30. Hetherington, Marc J. 2009. 'Putting polarization in perspective.' British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413-448
  31. Hierro, María José, and Aina Gallego. 2018. 'Identities in between: Political conflict and ethnonational identities in multicultural states.' Journal of Conflict Resolution 62 (6): 1314-1339.
  32. Hobolt, Sara B. 2018. 'Brexit and the 2017 UK General Election.' Journal of Common Market Studies 56, 39-50.
  33. Hobolt, Sara B. 2016. 'The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent.' Journal of European Public Policy 23(9): 1259-1277.
  34. Hobolt, Sara B. 2009. Europe in Question. Referendums on European Integration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  35. Hobolt, Sara B., and Toni Rodon. 2020. 'Cross-cutting issues and electoral choice. EU issue voting in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum.' Journal of European Public Policy 27 (2): 227-245.
  36. Horowitz, Donald L. 1993. 'Democracy in divided societies.' Journal of Democracy 4(4): 18- 38.
  37. Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2018. 'Cleavage theory meets Europe's crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage.' Journal of European Public Policy 25(1): 109- 135.
  38. Huddy, Leonie. 2001. 'From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory.' Political Psychology 22(1): 127-156.
  39. Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe. 2015. 'Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity.' American Political Science Review, 109(1):1-17.
  40. Jasso, Guillermina. 2006. 'Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgements.' Sociological Methods & Research 34(3): 334-423
  41. Jennings, Will, and Gerry Stoker. 2017. 'Tilting towards the cosmopolitan axis? Political change in England and the 2017 General Election.' Political Quarterly 88(3): 359-369.
  42. Johnston, Ron, D. Manley, K. Jones, and Charles J. Pattie. 2018. 'Geographies of Brexit and its aftermath: Voting in England at the 2016 referendum and the 2017 General Election.' Space and Polity: In press.
  43. Kinder, Donald R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  44. Klar, Samara. 2014. 'Partisanship in a social setting.' American Journal of Political Science 58.3 (2014): 687-704.
  45. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Romain Lachat, Martin Dolezal, Simon Bornschier, and Timotheos Frey. 2008. West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Romain Lachat, Martin Dolezal, Simon Bornschier, and Timotheos Frey. 2006. 'Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared.' European Journal of Political Research 45(6): 921-956.
  47. Krosnick, Jon C. 1990. 'Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America.' Political Behavior 12(1): 59-92.
  48. Lacombe, Matthew J. 2019. "The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: the National Rifle Association's Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity." The Journal of Politics 81(4): 1342-1356.
  49. Layman, Geoff C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. 'Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences.' Annual Political Science Review 9: 83-110.
  50. Leeper, Thomas, Sara Hobolt and James Tilley. 2019. 'Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments', Political Analysis, DOI:10.1017/pan.2019.30 · DOI
  51. Levendusky, Matthew S. 2013. 'Why do partisan media polarize viewers?' American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 611-623.
  52. Levendusky, Matthew and Neil Malhotra. 2016. 'Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?' Political Communication 33(2): 283-301.
  53. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. Political Man: The social bases of politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  54. MacKuen, Michael, Jennifer Wolak, Luke Keele, and George E. Marcus. 2010. 'Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation.' American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 440-458.
  55. Malka, Ariel, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2010. 'More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues.' Social Justice Research 23(2-3): 156-188.
  56. Mason, Lilliana. 2013. 'The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate.' American Behavioral Scientist 57(1): 140-159.
  57. Mason, Lilliana. 2015. '"I disrespectfully agree": The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization.' American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 128-145.
  58. Miller, Patrick R., and Pamela Johnston Conover. 2015. 'Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States.' Political Research Quarterly 68(2): 225-239.
  59. Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. 'Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?' Social Research 66(3): 745-748.
  60. Oller i Sala, Josep Maria, Albert Satorra, and Adolf Tobeña. 2019. 'Secessionists vs. unionists in Catalonia: mood, emotional profiles and beliefs about secession perspectives in two confronted communities.' Psychology 10(3): 336-357.
  61. Prosser, Christopher. 2016. 'Calling European Union treaty referendums: electoral and institutional politics.' Political Studies 64(1): 182-199.
  62. Prosser, Christopher. 2018. 'The strange death of multi-party Britain: The UK General Election of 2017.' West European Politics 41(5): 1226-1236.
  63. Rabushka, Alvin, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1972. Politics in Plural Societies. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
  64. Winston Smith, Laura G.E., Emma F. Thomas, and Craig McGarty. 2015. '"We must be the change we want to see in the world": Integrating norms and identities through social interaction.' Political Psychology 36(5): 543-557.
  65. Stanley, Harold W. 1988. 'Southern partisan changes: Dealignment, realignment or both?' Journal of Politics 50(1): 64-88.
  66. Tajfel, Henri. 1970. 'Experiments in intergroup discrimination.' Scientific American 223(5): 96-103.
  67. Tajfel, Henri. 1979. 'Individuals and groups in social psychology.' British Journal of Clinical Psychology 18(2): 183-190.
  68. Thompson, Dennis, and Amy Gutmann. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  69. Tilley, James, and Sara B. Hobolt. 2011. 'Is the government to blame? An experimental test of how partisanship shapes perceptions of performance and responsibility.' Journal of Politics 73(2): 316-330.
  70. Tilley, James, and Geoffrey Evans. 2017. 'The New Politics of Class after the 2017 General Election.' Political Quarterly 88(4): 710-715.
  71. Turner, John C. 1982. 'Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group.' In Tajfel, Henri, ed., Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15- 40.
  72. Valentino, Nicholas A., Vincent L. Hutchings, Antoine J. Banks, and Anne K. Davis. 2008. 'Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet.' Political Psychology 29(2): 247-273.
  73. Valentino, Nicholas A., and David O. Sears. 2005. 'Old times there are not forgotten: Race and partisan realignment in the contemporary South.' American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 672-688.
  74. Westwood, Sean J., Shanto Iyengar, Stefaan Walgrave, Rafael Leonisio, Luis Miller, and Oliver Strijbis. 2018. 'The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism.' European Journal of Political Research 57 (2): 333-354.
  75. Wlezien, Christopher, Mark Franklin, and Daniel Twiggs. 1997. 'Economic perceptions and vote choice: Disentangling the endogeneity.' Political Behavior 19(1): 7-17.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hobolt, S. B., Leeper, T. J., & Tilley, J.
Affiliations
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Hobolt, Sara B.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2020-07-07
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
1476-1493
ISSN
  • 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2112
DOI
10.1017/s0007123420000125
OpenAlex
W3008845104
Cited by
496
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 100 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 21
FWCI
217.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • British Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Political Science Association
  • University of Exeter
  • Durham University
  • Universität Zürich
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/R000573/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
affective polarization, Brexit, Brexit referendum, social identity, partisan identity, prejudice, stereotyping

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