The poles in polarization: Social categorization and affective polarization in multiparty systems

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Adrian Rothers
{"title":"The poles in polarization: Social categorization and affective polarization in multiparty systems","authors":"Adrian Rothers","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2025.102908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A challenge in adapting the concept of affective polarization to multiparty systems has been to determine who is polarized against whom. I propose a strategy to uncover the different ways in which people construe the political field – that is, how they categorize the party landscape in terms of “us” and “them” from commonly-used survey data. Using 2023 panel data from Germany, a multiparty democracy, I show that people are polarized in opposing camps along three different divides: between Left and Right, between Mainstream and Rightwing Populists, and between Center and Extreme. To understand what people are polarized over, I explore the issue differences that underpin each of the divides. Lastly, I examine the associations between affective polarization and democratic attitudes across camps and find considerable variation in those associations. This variation suggests that perhaps not all affective polarization should be seen as equally problematic.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 102908"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379425000149","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A challenge in adapting the concept of affective polarization to multiparty systems has been to determine who is polarized against whom. I propose a strategy to uncover the different ways in which people construe the political field – that is, how they categorize the party landscape in terms of “us” and “them” from commonly-used survey data. Using 2023 panel data from Germany, a multiparty democracy, I show that people are polarized in opposing camps along three different divides: between Left and Right, between Mainstream and Rightwing Populists, and between Center and Extreme. To understand what people are polarized over, I explore the issue differences that underpin each of the divides. Lastly, I examine the associations between affective polarization and democratic attitudes across camps and find considerable variation in those associations. This variation suggests that perhaps not all affective polarization should be seen as equally problematic.
极化的两极:多党制下的社会分类与情感极化
使情感两极化概念适应多党制的一个挑战是确定谁对谁两极化。我提出了一种策略来揭示人们解释政治领域的不同方式——也就是说,他们如何从常用的调查数据中根据“我们”和“他们”对政党格局进行分类。我利用多党制民主国家德国的2023年面板数据表明,人们在三个不同的阵营中两极分化:左翼和右翼、主流和右翼民粹主义者、中间和极端。为了理解人们在什么方面出现了两极分化,我探讨了支撑每种分歧的问题差异。最后,我研究了情感两极分化与各阵营民主态度之间的联系,并发现这些联系存在相当大的差异。这种差异表明,也许并不是所有的情感两极分化都应该被视为同样的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信