党内情感两极分化

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1111/pops.12973
David J. Young, Lee H. de‐Wit
{"title":"党内情感两极分化","authors":"David J. Young, Lee H. de‐Wit","doi":"10.1111/pops.12973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Politics is increasingly a major source of social division, and party identities are theorized to be major drives of political hostility. However, parties often contain factions who are deeply hostile towards one another. Currently, we do not know whether hostility between factions within parties can be as intense as hostility between parties. In this article we compare, for the major parties in Britain (Ns = 522; 568) and the United States (N = 443), the affect that partisans feel towards factions within their own party and factions in rival parties. We find that within‐party affective polarization effects are large on average (d = 0.8) and sometimes very large (d > 1.2), that they are usually smaller than between‐party effects but can equal or exceed them, and, in several cases, factions prefer an out‐party faction over their in‐party rivals. These findings demonstrate that strong affective polarization can emerge between groups who share party identities, highlighting the importance of factions in political psychology and raising questions about the effect of party identities on affective polarization.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Affective polarization within parties\",\"authors\":\"David J. Young, Lee H. de‐Wit\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pops.12973\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Politics is increasingly a major source of social division, and party identities are theorized to be major drives of political hostility. However, parties often contain factions who are deeply hostile towards one another. Currently, we do not know whether hostility between factions within parties can be as intense as hostility between parties. In this article we compare, for the major parties in Britain (Ns = 522; 568) and the United States (N = 443), the affect that partisans feel towards factions within their own party and factions in rival parties. We find that within‐party affective polarization effects are large on average (d = 0.8) and sometimes very large (d > 1.2), that they are usually smaller than between‐party effects but can equal or exceed them, and, in several cases, factions prefer an out‐party faction over their in‐party rivals. These findings demonstrate that strong affective polarization can emerge between groups who share party identities, highlighting the importance of factions in political psychology and raising questions about the effect of party identities on affective polarization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12973\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12973","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

政治日益成为社会分化的主要根源,而政党身份被认为是政治敌意的主要驱动力。然而,党派之间往往存在严重的敌意。目前,我们还不知道党内派系之间的敌对是否会像党派之间的敌对一样激烈。在本文中,我们比较了英国(Ns = 522;568)和美国(Ns = 443)主要政党的党派成员对本党内部派别和敌对党派的情感。我们发现,党内情感极化效应平均较大(d = 0.8),有时甚至非常大(d > 1.2),通常小于党际效应,但也可能等于或超过党际效应。这些研究结果表明,在具有相同党派身份的群体之间可能会出现强烈的情感极化,突出了派别在政治心理学中的重要性,并提出了党派身份对情感极化的影响问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Affective polarization within parties
Politics is increasingly a major source of social division, and party identities are theorized to be major drives of political hostility. However, parties often contain factions who are deeply hostile towards one another. Currently, we do not know whether hostility between factions within parties can be as intense as hostility between parties. In this article we compare, for the major parties in Britain (Ns = 522; 568) and the United States (N = 443), the affect that partisans feel towards factions within their own party and factions in rival parties. We find that within‐party affective polarization effects are large on average (d = 0.8) and sometimes very large (d > 1.2), that they are usually smaller than between‐party effects but can equal or exceed them, and, in several cases, factions prefer an out‐party faction over their in‐party rivals. These findings demonstrate that strong affective polarization can emerge between groups who share party identities, highlighting the importance of factions in political psychology and raising questions about the effect of party identities on affective polarization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
When saying sorry is not enough: The paradox of a political apology offered to Irish mother and baby home survivors Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false Dealing with uncertainty and cognitive biases in international politics Overcoming (vegan) burnout: Mass gatherings can provide respite and rekindle shared identity and social action efforts in moralized minority groups Perceived threat, compassion, and public evaluations toward refugees
×
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