Cited by 9Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracyPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Affective polarization towards parties and leaders, and electoral participation in 13 parliamentary democracies, 1980–2019

Open access
Ferreira da Silva, Frederico, Garzia, Diego·2024·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfae053

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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 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
  2. Boxell Levi, Gentzkow Matthew, Shapiro Jesse M. 2022. “ Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 106: 557– 65.
  3. Druckman James N., Levendusky Matthew S. 2019. “ What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?” Public Opinion Quarterly 83: 114– 22.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Krupnikov Yanna, Ryan John B. 2022. The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Poguntke Thomas, Webb Paul (eds.). 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. 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

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
Published
2024
Volume
88
Issue
4
Pages
1234-1248
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W4407589959
Cited by
9
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4
FWCI
14.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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