Affective polarization towards parties and leaders, and electoral participation in 13 parliamentary democracies, 1980–2019
Open accessAbstract
Comparative research on affective polarization provides evidence that this phenomenon is present also in parliamentary democracies. Although it has been typically understood as the difference in levels of affect toward in- and out-parties, more recent research has established the relevance of polarized feelings toward party leaders as objects of affective polarization also in parliamentary systems. While several studies have cross-sectionally examined the effect of affective polarization on turnout, recent research has taken an innovative approach by systematically comparing the impact of polarized feelings toward parties and candidates in the probability of turning out in US presidential elections, showing the primacy of the latter in predicting patterns of electoral participation. We expand the contribution of those studies by providing the first longitudinal account of the relationship between affective polarization and turnout in multi-party systems, as well as the first systematic comparison of the effects of party and leader affective polarization on turnout beyond the United States. Using post-electoral survey data covering 87 elections from 13 Western parliamentary democracies collected between 1980 and 2019, our results confirm that polarized feelings toward both parties and leaders are positively associated with turnout in parliamentary democracies. More importantly, our findings highlight the growing relevance of leader affective polarization in accounting for patterns of electoral participation. These results are robust to the use of self-reported and validated measures of turnout in selected countries, as well as different model specifications. Our conclusions contribute both theoretically and methodologically to the literature on affective polarization.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A modal measure in cross-national, multi-party contexts is a like/dislike scale, somewhat akin to the feeling thermometer.
“Paralleling the U.S. case, a modal measure in cross-national, multi-party contexts is a like/dislike scale, somewhat akin to the feeling thermometer.”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Ferreira Da Silva & Garzia, 2024
This measure has been included in large, cross-national surveys such as the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) survey and the Comparative National Election Project (CNEP).
“This measure has been included in large, cross-national surveys such as the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) survey and the Comparative National Election Project (CNEP) (e.g., Boxell et al., 2024;Ferreira Da Silva & Garzia, 2024;Gidron et al., 2020;Wagner, 2021;Ward & Tavits, 2019).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Ferreira Da Silva & Garzia, 2024
The Data and Measures section describes using party and leader like-dislike items from national election studies in 13 countries, but it does not identify those studies as CSES or CNEP surveys. Searches for “CSES,” “CNEP,” and both survey names found no passage establishing that the measure was included in either named survey. (LLM, conf=0.72)
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
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,317 · see citing works
Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems
Wagner, M. (2021) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102199 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Reiljan, A. (2020) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12351 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
The Differential Effects of Actual and Perceived Polarization
Enders, A. M., & Armaly, M. T. (2019) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective
Garzia, D., Ferreira da Silva, F., & Maye, S. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad004 · Cited by 137 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…Ryan 2022)—in Western publics has motivated a growing research interest in the topic, now extending beyond the original American focus into multiparty contexts (Gidron, Adams, and Horne 2020; Reiljan 2020; Wagner 2021; Boxell, Gentzkow, and Shapiro 2022; Garzia, Ferreira da Silva, and Maye 2023).”
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Ahn Chloe, Mutz Diana. 2023. “ The Effects of Polarized Evaluations on Political Participation: Does Hating the Other Side Motivate Voters?” Public Opinion Quarterly 87: 243– 66. 10.1093/poq/nfad012. · DOI
- Boxell Levi, Gentzkow Matthew, Shapiro Jesse M. 2022. “ Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 106: 557– 65.
- Druckman James N., Levendusky Matthew S. 2019. “ What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?” Public Opinion Quarterly 83: 114– 22.
- Garzia Diego, Ferreira da Silva Frederico, De Angelis Andrea. 2021. Leaders without Partisans: Dealignment, Media Change and the Personalization of Politics. London/New York: ECPR Press/Rowman & Littlefield.
- Karp Jeffrey A., Brockington David. 2005. “ Social Desirability and Response Validity: A Comparative Analysis of Overreporting Voter Turnout in Five Countries.” The Journal of Politics 67: 825– 40.
- Kingzette Jon. 2021. “ Who Do You Loathe? Feelings toward Politicians vs. Ordinary People in the Opposing Party.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 8: 75– 84.
- Krupnikov Yanna, Ryan John B. 2022. The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- McAllister Ian. 2007. “ The Personalization of Politics”. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by Dalton Russell J., Klingemann Hans‐Dieter, 571– 88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- McCoy Jennifer, Somer Murat. 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: 234– 71.
- Poguntke Thomas, Webb Paul (eds.). 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Reiljan Andres, Garzia Diego, Ferreira da Silva Frederico, Trechsel Alexander H. 2023. “ Patterns of Affective Polarization toward parties and leaders in the democratic world.” American Political Science Review 118: 654– 70. 10.1017/S0003055423000485. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ferreira da Silva, F., & Garzia, D.
- Affiliations
- Senior Researcher, Institute of Political Studies, University of Lausanne , Lausanne,
- University of Lausanne (CH)
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1234-1248
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- PMC
- PMC11957244
- OpenAlex
- W4407589959
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 14.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Swiss National Science Foundation (PCEFP1_186898)
- 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 › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- affective polarization, voter turnout, party leaders, parliamentary democracy, multiparty system, longitudinal analysis, post-election survey
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