Cited by 106Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and Democracy

Affective polarization in multiparty systems? Comparing affective polarization towards voters and parties in Norway and the United States

Open access
Knudsen, Erik·2021·Scandinavian Political Studies

Abstract

A growing body of comparative studies on partisan hostility – a phenomenon known as affective polarization – is providing evidence that partisan affective polarization is generally no greater in the United States than it is in many European multiparty systems. This article takes the comparative literature on affective polarization one step further by presenting the first comparative study on affective polarization that simultaneously uses, compares and combines a direct measure of affective polarization towards voters (using the inter‐party marriage measure) and an indirect measure of affective polarization towards parties (using the like/dislike of party measure) while accounting for the fact that multiparty systems have numerous political parties. This is done by comparing the levels of affective polarization in the United States and Norway. The results show greater affective polarization in the United States relating to parties, but the differences between these two countries are indistinguishable from chance when focusing on the affect relating to voters. This provides empirical evidence that comparative evidence of negative affect towards parties cannot necessarily be generalized to suggest that there is comparative evidence of negative affect towards voters. Yet the results also suggest that negative feelings towards out‐parties move to some extent to the personal level in terms of negative feelings towards voters of these out‐parties.

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 · 10.1111/1467-9477.12186

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?

  • 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 Knudsen, 2021

  • Measures in multi-party contexts often employ the same question wording as their American counterparts.

    “Here, measures often employ the same question wording as their American counterparts (e.g., Knudsen, 2021).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Knudsen, 2021

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: 13

  1. Aarøe, L. & Petersen, M. B. 2014. 'Crowding out Culture: Scandinavians and Americans Agree on Social Welfare in the Face of Deservingness Cues', The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 684-97.
  2. Carlin, R. E. & Love, G. J. 2016. 'Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies', British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 1-25.
  3. Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J. & Mullinix, K. J. 2018. 'Generalizability of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimates across Samples', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441-6.
  4. Druckman, J. N. & Levendusky, M. S. 2019. 'What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?', Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114-22.
  5. Garry, J. 2007. 'Making "Party Identification" More Versatile: Operationalising the Concept for the Multiparty Setting', Electoral Studies, 26(2), 346-58.
  6. Hansen, K. M. & Kosiara-Pedersen, K. 2017. 'How Campaigns Polarize the Electorate: Political Polarization as an Effect of the Minimal Effect Theory Within a Multi-party System', Party Politics, 23(3), 181-92.
  7. Hainmueller, J. 2012. 'Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies', Political Analysis, 20(1), 25-46. 14679477, 2021, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9477.12186, Wiley Online Library on [09/09/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 44 -No. 1, 2021
  8. Huff, C. & Kertzer, J. D. 2018. 'How the Public Defines Terrorism', American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 55-71.
  9. Huff, C. & Tingley, D. 2015. '"Who Are These People?" Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents', Research & Politics, 2(3), 2053168015604648.
  10. Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y. & Ryan, J. B. 2018. 'Affective Polarization or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a Dislike for the Opposing Party from a Dislike of Partisanship', Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 379-90.
  11. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N. & Freese, J. 2015. 'The Generalizability of Survey Experiments', Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109-38.
  12. Tajfel, H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Westwood, S. J., Iyengar, S., Walgrave, S., Leonisio, R., Miller, L. & Strijbis, O. 2018. 'The Tie that Divides: Cross-National Evidence of the Primacy of Partyism', European Journal of Political Research, 57(2), 333-54.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knudsen, E.
Affiliations
University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Knudsen, Erik
Venue
Scandinavian Political Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-28
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
34-44
ISSN
  • 0080-6757 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9477
OpenAlex
W3082643023
Cited by
106
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 9
FWCI
44.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scandinavian Political Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bergens Forskningsstiftelse
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
affective polarization, partisan hostility, multiparty system, Norway, United States, 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