纵向情感极化与横向情感极化:区分对精英和选民的情感

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102814
João Areal , Eelco Harteveld
{"title":"纵向情感极化与横向情感极化:区分对精英和选民的情感","authors":"João Areal ,&nbsp;Eelco Harteveld","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The way people feel towards other voters has garnered enormous attention with the rise of affective polarization, or hostility across political lines. As this literature grows increasingly comparative, scholars often rely on the widely available feeling thermometer towards political parties. This carries the strong assumption that (dis)affect towards parties (“vertical”) extends to voters (“horizontal”). We test this assumption using 14 independent samples covering 10 countries. Firstly, we ask whether people differentiate between parties/politicians and their voters. We find that individuals consistently differentiate between elites and voters, though this is conditional on whether evaluations are towards in- or out-groups. Secondly, we examine which factors are associated with a greater gap in evaluations. We find that differentiation may be more related to the type of party-voter group being evaluated rather than individual-level features. Put together, these findings suggest researchers should be cautious when equating vertical and horizontal affective polarization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 102814"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000726/pdfft?md5=18120d61a15bc8473f567b2fb16c4353&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000726-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vertical vs horizontal affective polarization: Disentangling feelings towards elites and voters\",\"authors\":\"João Areal ,&nbsp;Eelco Harteveld\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The way people feel towards other voters has garnered enormous attention with the rise of affective polarization, or hostility across political lines. As this literature grows increasingly comparative, scholars often rely on the widely available feeling thermometer towards political parties. This carries the strong assumption that (dis)affect towards parties (“vertical”) extends to voters (“horizontal”). We test this assumption using 14 independent samples covering 10 countries. Firstly, we ask whether people differentiate between parties/politicians and their voters. We find that individuals consistently differentiate between elites and voters, though this is conditional on whether evaluations are towards in- or out-groups. Secondly, we examine which factors are associated with a greater gap in evaluations. We find that differentiation may be more related to the type of party-voter group being evaluated rather than individual-level features. Put together, these findings suggest researchers should be cautious when equating vertical and horizontal affective polarization.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":\"90 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102814\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000726/pdfft?md5=18120d61a15bc8473f567b2fb16c4353&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000726-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000726\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000726","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

摘要

随着情感两极分化或跨政治派别敌意的兴起,人们对其他选民的感觉引起了广泛关注。随着这些文献的比较性越来越强,学者们通常依赖于广泛使用的对政党的感觉温度计。这带有一个强有力的假设,即对政党("纵向")的(不)情感会延伸到对选民("横向")的(不)情感。我们使用涵盖 10 个国家的 14 个独立样本对这一假设进行了检验。首先,我们询问人们是否会区分政党/政治家及其选民。我们发现,个人始终会区分精英和选民,但这取决于对内或对外群体的评价。其次,我们研究了哪些因素与评价差距的扩大有关。我们发现,差异可能与所评价的政党-选民群体的类型而非个人层面的特征有更大关系。综上所述,这些研究结果表明,研究人员在将纵向和横向情感极化等同起来时应谨慎行事。
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
Vertical vs horizontal affective polarization: Disentangling feelings towards elites and voters

The way people feel towards other voters has garnered enormous attention with the rise of affective polarization, or hostility across political lines. As this literature grows increasingly comparative, scholars often rely on the widely available feeling thermometer towards political parties. This carries the strong assumption that (dis)affect towards parties (“vertical”) extends to voters (“horizontal”). We test this assumption using 14 independent samples covering 10 countries. Firstly, we ask whether people differentiate between parties/politicians and their voters. We find that individuals consistently differentiate between elites and voters, though this is conditional on whether evaluations are towards in- or out-groups. Secondly, we examine which factors are associated with a greater gap in evaluations. We find that differentiation may be more related to the type of party-voter group being evaluated rather than individual-level features. Put together, these findings suggest researchers should be cautious when equating vertical and horizontal 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
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.
期刊最新文献
Does disability affect support for political parties? Economic growth, largest-party vote shares, and electoral authoritarianism Targeting voters online: How parties’ campaigns differ Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context
×
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