Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective.

IF 2.9 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Opinion Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/poq/nfad004
Diego Garzia, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Simon Maye
{"title":"Affective Polarization in Comparative and Longitudinal Perspective.","authors":"Diego Garzia,&nbsp;Frederico Ferreira da Silva,&nbsp;Simon Maye","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Existent research shows that affective polarization has been intensifying in some publics, diminishing in others, and remaining stable in most. We contribute to this debate by providing the most encompassing comparative and longitudinal account of affective polarization so far. We resort to a newly assembled dataset able to track partisan affect, with varying time series, in eighteen democracies over the last six decades. We present results based on two different operational measures of affective polarization: Reiljan's Affective Polarization Index, based on reported partisans only, and Wagner's weighted distance from the most liked party, based on the whole electorate. Our reassessment of affective polarization among partisans confirms that an intensifying trend is observable in a number of countries but it is, by no means, generalizable to all established democracies. Regarding the longitudinal assessment of affective polarization among the electorate, we confirm that US citizens have become more affectively polarized over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"87 1","pages":"219-231"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127533/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Opinion Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad004","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Existent research shows that affective polarization has been intensifying in some publics, diminishing in others, and remaining stable in most. We contribute to this debate by providing the most encompassing comparative and longitudinal account of affective polarization so far. We resort to a newly assembled dataset able to track partisan affect, with varying time series, in eighteen democracies over the last six decades. We present results based on two different operational measures of affective polarization: Reiljan's Affective Polarization Index, based on reported partisans only, and Wagner's weighted distance from the most liked party, based on the whole electorate. Our reassessment of affective polarization among partisans confirms that an intensifying trend is observable in a number of countries but it is, by no means, generalizable to all established democracies. Regarding the longitudinal assessment of affective polarization among the electorate, we confirm that US citizens have become more affectively polarized over time.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较与纵向视角下的情感极化。
现有的研究表明,情感两极分化在一些公众中加剧,在另一些公众中减弱,但在大多数公众中保持稳定。我们通过提供迄今为止最全面的情感两极分化的比较和纵向说明来促进这场辩论。我们采用了一个新组装的数据集,该数据集能够追踪过去六十年来18个民主国家中不同时间序列的党派影响。我们提出的结果基于两种不同的情感极化的操作措施:Reiljan的情感极化指数,仅基于报告的党派,和瓦格纳的加权距离最受欢迎的政党,基于全体选民。我们对党派之间情感两极分化的重新评估证实,在一些国家可以观察到一种加剧的趋势,但这绝不是所有老牌民主国家的普遍趋势。关于选民情感两极分化的纵向评估,我们确认,随着时间的推移,美国公民已经变得更加情感两极分化。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Published since 1937, Public Opinion Quarterly is among the most frequently cited journals of its kind. Such interdisciplinary leadership benefits academicians and all social science researchers by providing a trusted source for a wide range of high quality research. POQ selectively publishes important theoretical contributions to opinion and communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of methodological issues involved in survey validity—including questionnaire construction, interviewing and interviewers, sampling strategy, and mode of administration. The theoretical and methodological advances detailed in pages of POQ ensure its importance as a research resource.
期刊最新文献
The Global Crisis of Trust in Elections The Electoral Misinformation Nexus: How News Consumption, Platform Use, and Trust in News Influence Belief in Electoral Misinformation. Where Are the Sore Losers? Competitive Authoritarianism, Incumbent Defeat, and Electoral Trust in Zambia's 2021 Election. The Trump Effect? Right-Wing Populism and Distrust in Voting by Mail in Canada. Trust in the Count: Improving Voter Confidence with Post-election Audits
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1