CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Culture wars, perception gap and affective polarization: an approach from the Spanish case

Open access
Rojo Martínez, José Miguel, Crespo Martínez, Ismael, Mora Rodríguez, Alberto·2023·OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales
DOI 10.14198/obets.21976
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Previous research has shown the existence of strong relationships between affective polarization and culture wars, but it is unknown to what extent this emotional division is, in fact, a ‘false polarization’ generated from second-order beliefs in those identity issues that categorize and define group membership. Using data from the ‘First National Survey of Political Polarization’ in Spain, an operationalization of the concept of ‘perception gap’ is proposed and an individual measurement of it through a formula that adapts the coefficient of Average Deviation (Dx̄), defined as the arithmetic mean of the absolute values of the deviations from the mean. This seeks to describe the ‘perception gap’ in Spain around two relevant culture wars in the discursive articulation of the ideological blocs: gender violence and national symbols. In the same way, the relationship between the partisan affiliation of the voters and the levels of perceptive gap is analyzed. In this regard, it is shown that, in those matters that are claimed as a symbolic property of an ideological bloc, the supporters of this bloc have a higher level of ‘perception gap’, that is, they tend to exaggerate their differences with the outgroup distorting the real positions of the adversaries. When the thematic battle redirects to a position of moral superiority of the group and becomes a key issue for intergroup differentiation, the homogeneity of the positions of its members is more accentuated and a greater perceptual deviation bias is also produced.

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 · 10.14198/obets.21976

Cites

47 of 47 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?

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

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bar-Tal, D. (1997). The monopolization of patriotism. In D. Bar-Tal & E. Staub (Eds.), Patriotism in the life of individuals and nations (pp. 247-270). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
  2. De Vries, C.E., Hakhverdian, A. & Lancee, B. (2013). The dynamics of voters´ left/right identification: the role of economics and cultural attitudes. Political Science Research and Methods, 1 (2), 223-238. https://doi. org/10.1017/psrm.2013. · DOI
  3. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S.J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, Vol. 18, nº 1, 2023; pp. 79-96. https://doi.org/10.14198/obets.21976 of Political Science, 22, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-polisci-051117-073034. · DOI
  4. Smith Castro, V. (2006). La psicología social de las relaciones intergrupales: modelos e hipótesis. Actualidades en Psicología, 20 (107), 45-71.
  5. Tirapu-Ustárroz, J., Pérez-Sayes, G., Erekatxo-Bilbao, M. & Pelegrín-Valero, C. (2007). ¿Qué es la teoría de la mente? Revista de Neurología, 44 (8), 479-489.
  6. OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, Vol. 18, nº 1, 2023; pp. 79-96. https://doi.org/10.14198/obets.21976

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rojo Martínez, J. M., Crespo Martínez, I., & Mora Rodríguez, A.
ORCID
Venue
OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales
Publisher
Universidad de Alicante Servicio de Publicaciones
Published
2023-01-30
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
79
ISSN
1989-1385 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.14198/obets.21976
OpenAlex
W4319317276
Cited by
7
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • OBETS Revista de Ciencias Sociales (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Alicante (Universidad de Alicante) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministerio de Universidades
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
culture wars, affective polarization, perception gap, second-order beliefs, ideological blocs, gender-based violence, national symbols, partisan affiliation, intergroup differentiation, Spain

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