CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Vaccine Coverage and HesitancySocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Asymmetric affective polarization regarding COVID‐19 vaccination in six European countries

Open access
Filsinger, Maximilian, Freitag, Markus·2024·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-66756-wPMC PMC11237099
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While recent research has shown that supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination have polarizing political attitudes and beliefs, we lack a thorough understanding of how these two groups think about each other. To investigate the feelings and stereotypes between supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination, this study draws on cross-sectional survey data from six European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), collected between January and March 2022 (n = 6379). Our findings indicate an opinion-based affective polarization between supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination. Both groups not only adopt different positions on the issue but also display dynamics of in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. Most notably, our assessment of thermometer scores and character trait ratings shows that this affective polarization is asymmetric, as it is stronger among the pro-vaccination group. Our findings are critical to the control of infectious diseases because affective polarization has been shown to influence health behaviors such as compliance with government policies. The issue is even more pressing as globalization boosts the threat of pandemic emergence and accelerates the global transmission of diseases.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-024-66756-w

Cites

6 of 6 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 Filsinger & Freitag, 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: 41

  1. [1]Bor A Jørgensen F Petersen MB Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic Nature 2022 10.1038/s41586-022-05607-y 36482134 · DOI
  2. [2]Henkel L Sprengholz P Korn L Betsch C Böhm R The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization Nat. Human Behav. 2022 7 2 231 239 10.1038/s41562-022-01469-6 36329314 · DOI
  3. [3]Sprengholz P Henkel L Böhm R Betsch C Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased Nature 2023 623 588 593 10.1038/s41586-023-06674-5 37914928 · DOI
  4. [4]Miller JD Ackerman MS Laspra B Polino C Huffaker JS Public attitude toward Covid-19 vaccination: The influence of education, partisanship, biological literacy, and coronavirus understanding FASEB J. Off. Publ. Fed. Am. Soc. Exp. Biol. 2022 36 e22382 10.1096/fj.202200730 PMC9328288 35657606 · DOI
  5. [5]Weisel O Vaccination as a social contract: The case of COVID-19 and US political partisanship Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States Am. 2021 10.1073/pnas.2026745118 PMC8020640 33753515 · DOI
  6. [6]Schuessler J Dinesen PT Østergaard SD Sønderskov KM Public support for unequal treatment of unvaccinated citizens: Evidence from Denmark Soc. Sci. Med. (1982) 2022 305 115101 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115101 PMC9158390 35691214 · DOI
  7. [7]Ballone C Pacilli MG Teresi M Palumbo R Pagliaro S Attitudes moralization and outgroup dehumanization in the dynamic between pro- vs. anti-vaccines against COVID-19 Commun. Appl. Soc. Psy. 2023 33 1297 1308 10.1002/casp.2718 · DOI
  8. [9]Wagner M Affective polarization in Europe Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev. 2024 10.1017/S1755773923000383 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [10]Fiorina MP Abrams SJ Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in american politics 2009 University of Oklahoma Press
  10. [11]Dias N Lelkes Y the nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2022 66 775 790 10.1111/ajps.12628 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [12]Mason L “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2015 59 128 145 10.1111/ajps.12089 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13]Orr LV Huber GA The policy basis of measured partisan animosity in the United States Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2020 64 569 586 10.1111/ajps.12498 · DOI
  13. [14]West EA Iyengar S Partisanship as a social identity: Implications for polarization Polit. Behav. 2022 44 807 838 10.1007/s11109-020-09637-y · DOI
  14. [15]Hobolt SB Leeper TJ Tilley J Divided by the vote: Affective polarization in the wake of the brexit referendum Brit. J. Polit. Sci. 2021 51 1476 1493 10.1017/S0007123420000125 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [16]Schieferdecker D Joly P Faas T Affective polarization between opinion-based groups in a context of low partisan discord: Measuring its prevalence and consequences Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2024 36 1 14 10.1093/ijpor/edae009 · DOI
  16. [17]Wagner M Eberl J-M Divided by the jab: Affective polarisation based on COVID vaccination status J. Elect. Public Opin. Parties 2024 10.1080/17457289.2024.2352449 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [18]Broockman DE Kalla JL Westwood SJ does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2023 67 808 828 10.1111/ajps.12719 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [19]Graham MH Svolik MW Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2020 114 392 409 10.1017/S0003055420000052 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]McConnell C Margalit Y Malhotra N Levendusky M The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2018 62 5 18 10.1111/ajps.12330 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [22]Druckman JN Klar S Krupnikov Y Levendusky M Ryan JB How affective polarization shapes Americans’ political beliefs: A study of response to the COVID-19 pandemic J. Exp. Polit. Sci. 2021 8 223 234 10.1017/XPS.2020.28 · DOI
  21. [23]Stoetzer LF Affective partisan polarization and moral dilemmas during the COVID-19 pandemic Polit. Sci. Res. Methods 2022 11 2 429 436 10.1017/psrm.2022.13 · DOI
  22. [24]Carey J Nyhan B Phillips JB Reifler J Partisanship unmasked? The role of politics and social norms in COVID-19 mask-wearing behavior J. Exp. Polit. Sci. 2022 10 3 377 390 10.1017/XPS.2022.20 · DOI
  23. [26]Grossman, G., Kim, S., Rexer, J. M. & Thirumurthy, H. (2020) Political partisanship influences behavioral responses to governors' recommendations for COVID-19 prevention in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117, 24144–24153, 10.1073/pnas.2007835117 PMC7533884 32934147 · DOI
  24. [27]Ruggeri K A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19 Nature 2024 625 134 147 10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9 38093007 PMC10764287 · DOI
  25. [28]Aassve A Capezzone T Cavalli N Conzo P Peng C Social and political trust diverge during a crisis Sci. Rep. 2024 14 331 10.1038/s41598-023-50898-4 38172518 PMC10764309 · DOI
  26. [29]Filsinger M Freitag M Erhardt J Wamsler S Rally around your fellows: Information and social trust in a real-world experiment during the corona crisis Soc. Sci. J. 2021 10.1080/03623319.2021.1954463 · DOI
  27. [30]Taylor S The psychology of pandemics. Preparing for the next global outbreak of infectious disease 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publisher
  28. [33]Balcells L Daniels L-A Kuo A Territorial disputes and affective polarization Eur. J. Polit. Res. 2023 10.1111/1475-6765.12640 · DOI
  29. [34]Hahm H Hilpert D König T Divided by Europe: Affective polarisation in the context of European elections West Eur. Polit. 2022 46 4 705 731 10.1080/01402382.2022.2133277 · DOI
  30. [35]Bliuc A-M McGarty C Reynolds K Muntele D Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2007 37 19 32 10.1002/ejsp.334 · DOI
  31. [37]Huddy L Mason L Aarøe L Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2015 109 1 17 10.1017/S0003055414000604 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [38]Korn, L., Böhm, R., Meier, N. W. & Betsch, C. Vaccination as a social contract. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America 117, 14890–14899, 10.1073/pnas.1919666117 (2020) PMC7334515 32541033 · DOI
  33. [40]Druckman JN Levendusky MS What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opin. Q. 2019 83 114 122 10.1093/poq/nfz003 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [41]Ahler DJ Sood G The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences J. Polit. 2018 80 964 981 10.1086/697253 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [43]Ward DG Tavits M How partisan affect shapes citizens' perception of the political world Elect. Stud. 2019 60 102045 10.1016/j.electstud.2019.04.009) · DOI
  36. [44]Lees J Cikara M Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts Nat. Human Behav. 2020 4 279 286 10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4 31712763 · DOI · Paper page
  37. [45]Lee AH-Y Social trust in polarized times: How perceptions of political polarization affect americans' trust in each other Polit. Behav. 2022 44 1533 1554 10.1007/s11109-022-09787-1 35340916 PMC8932466 · DOI
  38. [46]Amsalem E Merkley E Loewen PJ Does talking to the other side reduce inter-party hostility? Evidence from three studies Polit. Commun. 2022 39 61 78 10.1080/10584609.2021.1955056 · DOI
  39. [47]Kalla JL Broockman DE Voter outreach campaigns can reduce affective polarization among implementing political activists: Evidence from inside three campaigns Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2022 116 1516 1522 10.1017/S0003055422000132 · DOI
  40. [48]Stanley ML Whitehead PS Sinnott-Armstrong W Seli P Exposure to opposing reasons reduces negative impressions of ideological opponents J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2020 91 104030 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.1040304 · DOI
  41. [49]Levendusky MS Americans, not partisans: Can priming american national identity reduce affective polarization? J. Politics 2018 80 59 70 10.1086/693987 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Filsinger, M., & Freitag, M.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Filsinger, Maximilian
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-07-10
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
15919-15919
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-024-66756-w
PMC
PMC11237099
OpenAlex
W4400505449
Cited by
17
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
Multidisciplinary Center for Infectious Diseases (MA_21)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
affective polarization, COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine attitudes, in-group favoritism, outgroup hostility, stereotypes, character traits, public opinion, health behavior
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination

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