Affective polarization in multiparty systems? Comparing affective polarization towards voters and parties in Norway and the United States
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
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
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
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · 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
Mass Partisan Polarization: Measuring a Relational Concept
Lauka, A., McCoy, J., & Firat, R. B. (2018) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764218759581 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Druckman, J. N. & Levendusky, M. S. 2019. 'What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?', Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114-22.
- Garry, J. 2007. 'Making "Party Identification" More Versatile: Operationalising the Concept for the Multiparty Setting', Electoral Studies, 26(2), 346-58.
- 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.
- 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
- Huff, C. & Kertzer, J. D. 2018. 'How the Public Defines Terrorism', American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 55-71.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Tajfel, H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 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
Polarisation, identity and affect - conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems
Röllicke, L. (2023) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102655 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Comellas, J. M., & Torcal, M. (2023) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102615 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Política, uso de medios y polarización afectiva en España
Crespo-Martínez, I., Melero-López, I., Mora-Rodríguez, A., & Rojo-Martínez, J.-M. (2024) · Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación · doi:10.14198/medcom.26681 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
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
- Knudsen, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Bergen (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Knudsen, Erik
- ORCID
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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