Polarisation, identity and affect - conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems

Röllicke, Lena

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102655

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This article endorses the emerging view that affective polarization in multiparty political systems should be conceptualized at a broader level than that of individual parties (like e.g., Kekkonen & Ylä-Anttila, 2020;Bantel, 2023; for a discussion see Röllicke, 2023). However, typical measurements of affective polarization, such as Wagner's (2021) measures of spread or weighted spread, yield biased results when we consider affective polarization between camps of parties rather than individual parties.…”

Section: Current Measurements Of Affective Polarization Are Incompati...supporting

confidence: 68%

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

Rothers

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Current Measurements Of Affective Polarization Are Incompati...supporting

confidence: 68%

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

Rothers

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most research on affective polarization has been conducted in the United States (M. Wagner, 2021), where it is often operationalized as the difference between Republicans and Democrats on feeling thermometers (Iyengar et al, 2019). The feeling thermometer is a valid measurement instrument in multiparty systems as well (Gidron et al, 2022), but there are various ways to conceptualize affective polarization in such contexts (Röllicke, 2023;Rothers, 2023). Previous research has used the least liked group paradigm (Bäck et al, 2023;Hofman & Hanitzsch, 2018), considered several outgroup parties simultaneously (Harteveld, 2021;Renström et al, 2021;M.…”

Section: Controversial Political Discussion In the Context Of Affecti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of intellectual humility in the context of affective polarization: Approaching and avoiding others in controversial political discussions.

Knöchelmann,

Cohrs

2024

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most research on affective polarization has been conducted in the United States (M. Wagner, 2021), where it is often operationalized as the difference between Republicans and Democrats on feeling thermometers (Iyengar et al, 2019). The feeling thermometer is a valid measurement instrument in multi-party systems as well (Gidron et al, 2022), but there are various ways to conceptualize affective polarization in such contexts (Röllicke, 2023;Rothers, 2023).…”

Section: Controversial Political Discussion In the Context Of Affecti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Intellectual Humility in the Context of Affective Polarization: Approaching and Avoiding Others in Controversial Political Discussions

Knöchelmann,

Cohrs

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affective polarization, the extent to which political actors treat each other as disliked outgroups, is challenging political exchange and deliberation, e.g. via mistrust of the ‘political enemy’ and unwillingness to discuss political topics with them. The present experiments address this problem and study what makes people approach, and not avoid, potential discussion partners in the context of polarized political topics in Germany. We hypothesized that intellectual humility, the recognition of one’s intellectual limitations, would predict both less affective polarization and higher approach and lower avoidance tendencies toward contrary minded-others. Across four pre-registered online survey experiments (N = 1668), we manipulated how intellectually humble a target person was perceived and measured participants’ self-reported (topic-specific) intellectual humility. Results revealed that participants’ intellectual humility was consistently negatively correlated with affective polarization. Additionally, intellectual humility of both the target person and the participants was beneficial, and sometimes even necessary, to make participants approach, and not avoid, the target person. Intellectual humility was more important than moral conviction, opinion, and opinion strength. Furthermore, the effects on approach and avoidance were mediated by more positive expectations regarding the debate, and the effects on future willingness for contact by higher target liking. Our findings suggest that intellectual humility is an important characteristic to enable political exchange as it leads to seeing political outgroups more positively and to a higher willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Implications for intergroup contact of political groups as well as ideas for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Polarisation, identity and affect - conceptualising affective polarisation in multi-party systems

Cited by 16 publications

References 76 publications

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

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

Effects of intellectual humility in the context of affective polarization: Approaching and avoiding others in controversial political discussions.

Effects of Intellectual Humility in the Context of Affective Polarization: Approaching and Avoiding Others in Controversial Political Discussions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About