CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 457Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFiscal Policies and Political Economy

Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization

Open access
Boxell, Levi, Gentzkow, Matthew, Shapiro, Jesse M.·2024·Review of Economics and Statistics
DOI 10.1162/rest_a_01160
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We measure trends in affective polarization in twelve OECD countries over the past four decades. According to our baseline estimates, the United States experienced the largest increase in polarization over this period. Five countries experienced a smaller increase in polarization. Six countries experienced a decrease in polarization. We relate trends in polarization to trends in potential explanatory factors.

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 · 10.1162/rest_a_01160

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • 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 Boxell et al., 2024

    Section A.5.1 CSES (page not provided) reproduces a party like–dislike rating question, supporting the claim that this measure appears in CSES. The passages from our copy do not establish that it also appears in the Comparative National Election Project (CNEP). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is evidence that ideological, issue and affective polarization have increased rapidly in the USA in the past few decades.

    “For example, there is evidence that ideological, issue and affective polarization have increased rapidly in the USA in the past few decades339,340, but it is also true that levels of polarization in the USA are smaller than (or similar to) levels observed in other countries65,341.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [339]

    The Introduction reports a substantial rise in US affective polarization from 1978 to 2020 and cites research finding an increase in ideological polarization. The Conclusion describes the rise in affective polarization as rapid, but our copy does not establish a corresponding rapid increase in issue polarization. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cross-national research shows that the upward trend in political intergroup affect is not at all as pronounced as in the USA.

    “The cross-national research that does exist, however, shows that the upward trend in political intergroup affect is not at all as pronounced as in the USA (Boxell et al. 2024).”

    From Computational Social Science of Social Cohesion and Polarization (2026) · cites this paper as Boxell et al. 2024

  • 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 Boxell et al., 2024

  • Several nations are even more polarized than the United States, although the United States seems to have had the sharpest recent increase.

    “This research finds that several nations are even more polarized than the United States (Gidron et al., 2020), although the United States seems to have had the sharpest recent increase (Boxell et al., 2024;Gidron et al., 2020).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Boxell et al., 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: 46

  1. Adams, James, Catherine E. De Vries, and Debra Leiter. 2011. "Subconstituency Reactions to Elite Depolarization in the Netherlands: An Analysis of the Dutch Public's Policy Beliefs and Partisan Loyalties, 1986-98." British Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 81-105.
  2. Adams, James, Jane Green, and Caitlin Milazzo. 2012a. "Has the British Public Depolarized Along With Political Elites? An American Perspective on British Public Opinion." Compar- ative Political Studies 45 (4): 507-530.
  3. Adams, James, Jane Green, and Caitlin Milazzo. 2012b. "Who Moves? Elite and Mass-Level Depolarization in Britain, 1987-2001." Electoral Studies 31 (4): 643-655.
  4. Arceneaux, Kevin, and Martin Johnson. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels?: Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Bell, Robert M. and Daniel F. McCaffrey. 2002. "Bias Reduction in Standard Errors for Linear Regression with Multi-Stage Samples." Survey Methodology 28 (2): 169-181.
  6. Best, D. J., and D. E. Roberts. 1975. "Algorithm AS 89: The Upper Tail Probabilities of Spear- man's Rho." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics) 24 (3): 377-379. countries drawn from the CSES.
  7. Fiorina, Morris P. 2017. Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting and Political Stalemate. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
  8. Gidron, Noam, James Adams, and Will Horne. 2019a. "Toward a Comparative Research Agenda on Affective Polarization in Mass Publics." APSA Comparative Politics Newsletter 29 (1): 30-36.
  9. Gift, Karen, and Thomas Gift. 2015. "Does Politics Influence Hiring? Evidence from a Random- ized Experiment." Political Behavior 37 (3): 653-675.
  10. Hetherington, Marc J., and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2015. Why Washington Won't Work: Polarization, Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Imbens, Guido W., and Michal Kolesár. 2016. "Robust Standard Errors in Small Samples: Some Practical Advice." Review of Economics and Statistics 98 (4): 701-712.
  12. Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth A. Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  13. Kevins, Anthony, and Stuart N. Soroka. 2018. "Growing Apart? Partisan Sorting in Canada, 1992-2015." Canadian Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 103-133.
  14. Kuziemko, Ilyana, and Ebonya Washington. 2018. "Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate." American Economic Review 108 (10): 2830-2867.
  15. Lelkes, Yphtach, Gaurav Sood, and Shanto Iyengar. 2017. "The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect." American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 5-20.
  16. Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals became Democrats and Conserva- tives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  17. Levendusky, Matthew S. 2010. "Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polar- ization." Political Behavior 32 (1): 111-131.
  18. Lupu, Noam. 2015. "Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective." Political Behavior 37 (2): 331-356.
  19. Mankiw, N. Gregory. 1995. "The Growth of Nations." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1995 (1): 275-326.
  20. Martini, Sergio, and Mariano Torcal. 2019. "Trust Across Political Conflicts: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Divided Societies." Party Politics 25 (2): 126-139.
  21. Mason, Lilliana. 2016. "A Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polariza- tion." Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 351-377.
  22. Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  23. Valentino, Nicholas A., and David O. Sears. 2005. "Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South." American Journal of Political Science 49 (3): 672-688.
  24. Webster, Steven W., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 2017. "The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate." American Politics Research 45 (4): 621-647.
  25. Westwood, Sean J., Shanto Iyengar, Stefaan Walgrave, Rafael Leonisio, Luis Miller, and Oliver Strijbis. 2018. "The Tie that Divides: Cross-National Evidence of the Primary of Partyism." European Journal of Political Research 57 (2): 333-354.
  26. Jones, Roger; McAllister, Ian; Denemark, David; Gow, David, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 1993". doi:10.4225/87/ZZ3NOB, ADA Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:3C/DZ94Ci0V2mfL02PVpX w== Jones, Roger; McAllister, Ian; Gow, David, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 1996" doi:10.4225/ 87/NSDHWM, ADA Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:V05mNiOGYLZnBaihME2SIA== · DOI
  27. Bean, Clive; Gow, David; McAllister, Ian, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 1998" doi:10.4225/87 /FFBWUU, ADA Dataverse, V2, UNF:6:pmAXB4lfnfvlseqWTWKOkg== · DOI
  28. Bean, Clive; Gow, David; McAllister, Ian, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 2001" doi:10.4225/87 /CALXMK, ADA Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:8dudxHV83HO/5+itv3DNjA== · DOI
  29. Bean, Clive; McAllister, Ian; Gibson, Rachel; Gow, David, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 2004" doi:10.4225/87/G9ITIO, ADA Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:Qer+KzJrJC+zlC3Gm6qDmw== · DOI
  30. Bean, Clive; McAllister, Ian; Gow, David, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 2007" doi:10.4225/87 /ZBUOW0, ADA Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:D7a6fhN+szVMSQF9xIh5+A== · DOI
  31. McAllister, Ian; Bean, Clive; Gibson, Rachel Kay; Pietsch, Juliet, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 2010" doi:10.4225/87/CYJNSM, ADA Dataverse, V2, UNF:6:3iyzr2dBihOrVkbafFkR ZA== Bean, Clive; McAllister, Ian; Pietsch, Juliet; Gibson, Rachel Kay, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 2013" doi:10.4225/87/WDBBAS, ADA Dataverse, V3, UNF:6:6gMySFLvbEH1ccG5 8om4Sg== · DOI
  32. McAllister, Ian; Makkai, Toni; Bean, Clive; Gibson, Rachel Kay, 2017, "Australian Election Study, 2016" doi:10.4225/87/7OZCZA, ADA Dataverse, V2, UNF:6:TNnUHDn0ZNSlIM94TQph Ww== · DOI
  33. McAllister, Ian; Bean, Clive; Gibson, Rachel; Makkai, Toni; Sheppard, Jill; Cameron, Sarah, 2019, "Australian Election Study, 2019" doi:10.26193/KMAMMW, ADA Dataverse, V2 A.6.3 Britain Data comes from the British Election Study (https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/). 16 We ac- knowledge that the BES and the relevant funding agencies bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. · DOI
  34. Heath, A., Jowell, R. and Curtice, J.K., British General Election Study, 1987; Cross-Section Survey [computer file]. 2nd Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], April 1993.
  35. Heath, A. et al., British General Election Study, 1997; Cross-Section Survey [computer file]. 2nd Edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], May 1999.
  36. Fieldhouse, E., Green, J., Evans, G., Schmitt, H., van der Eijk, C., Mellon, J., Prosser, C. (2016). British Election Study, 2015: Face-to-Face Post-Election Survey. [data collection]. Version 3.0. UK Data Service. SN: 7972, http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7972-1 · DOI
  37. Fieldhouse, E., Green, J., Evans, G., Schmitt, H., van der Eijk, C., Mellon, J., Prosser, C. (2018). British Election Study, 2017: Face-to-Face Post-Election Survey [data collection]. Version 1.0. http://doi .org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8418-1 A.6.4 Canada Toronto). Neither the Institute for Social Research, Elections Canada, or the Canadian Election Survey Team are responsible for the analyses and interpretations presented here. Data from the 2011 Canadian Election Survey were provided by the Institute for Social Re- search, York University. The survey was funded by Elections Canada, and was completed for the Canadian Election Team of Patrick Fournier (Université de Montréal), Fred Cutler (University of British Columbia), Stuart Soroka (McGill University), and Dietlind Stolle (McGill University). · DOI
  38. A.6.5 Denmark Converse, Philip E., Dupeux, Georges, and Pierce, Roy. French National Election Panel Study, 1967-1969. Version V1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-03-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02978.v1 · DOI
  39. Pierce, Roy. French Presidential Election Survey, 1988. Version V1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter- university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996-04-04. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06583.v1 · DOI
  40. Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, Mannheim (2020). Partial Cumulation of Politbarometers 1977-2018. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA2391 Data file Version 11.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13431. · DOI
  41. Ward, Robert E., and Kubota, Akira. Japanese National Election Study, 1967. Version V2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000- 01-18. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07294.v2 · DOI
  42. Flanagan, Scott C., Kohei, Shinsaku, Miyake, Ichiro, Richardson, Bradley M., and Watanuki, Joji. JABISS: The Japanese Election Study, 1976. Version V1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-02-27. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04682.v1 · DOI
  43. Drazanova, Lenka. 2020. "Introducing the Historical Index of Ethnic Fractionalization (HIEF) Dataset: Accounting for Longitudinal Changes in Ethnic Diversity." Journal of Open Hu- manities Data. 6 (1): 6. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/johd. · DOI
  44. Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin and B. Puranen et al. (eds.). 2014. World Values Survey: All Rounds -Country-Pooled Datafile Version: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp. Madrid: JD Systems Institute. · DOI
  45. Montalvo, Jose G., and Marta Reynal-Querol. 2005. "Ethnic Polarization, Potential Conflict, and Civil Wars." American Economic Review. 95 (3): 796-816.
  46. Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Anne Schulz, Simge Andı, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2020. Digital News Report 2020. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Accessed at https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/ on June 7, 2021. OECD. 2019. Foreign-born population (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/5a368e1b-en. OECD. 2020. International Migration Outlook 2020. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/ec98f531-en. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
ORCID
Venue
Review of Economics and Statistics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2024-03
Volume
106
Issue
2
Pages
557-565
ISSN
  • 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9142
DOI
10.1162/rest_a_01160
OpenAlex
W3138041143
Cited by
457
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
FWCI
261.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Review of Economics and Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1444721, DGE-165651 8, 1656518)
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • Brown University
  • York University
  • Queen's University
  • Göteborgs Universitet
  • Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-20-1-0252, W911NF)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Fiscal Policies and Political Economy
Keywords
affective polarization, political attitudes, public opinion, United States, OECD countries, political attitudes over time

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