Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Uncategorized

Description: MOTIVATION There is increasing attention in the comparative literature to the origins and consequences of affective polarization, a phenomenon referring to citizens’ growing sympathy towards co-partisans and antagonism towards supporters of other parties. Partisan animosity is reflected in a reluctance to engage with opposing partisans in non-political settings, lower levels of general social trust, as well as discriminatory behavior (e.g. Huber & Malhotra 2017; Iyengar, Sood & Lelkes 2012; Knudsen 2021; McConnell et al. 2018; Torcal & Thomson 2023). Affective polarization tends to be fuelled by a strengthening of political and social identities and, in particular, the increasing alignment of social identities along party lines, i.e. ‘social sorting’ (e.g. Harteveld 2021; Mason 2016, 2018). However, most of the comparative research exploring how social and political identities reinforce affective polarization is based on observational studies, which does not allow testing the causal impact of these identities. This study tackles this limitation by using conjoint experiments in five multiparty systems which ask respondents to choose among hypothetical profiles of families moving to live next door, whose attributes varied along a number of characteristics including partisan support, ideology, ethnicity, immigration status/country of birth, sexual orientation and other country-specific relevant features. We have also included some “placebo”attribute(factor) such as “pet owner/no pet owner” that could work as a baseline to estimate the different effects of certain factors in selecting a specific neighbor profile. Asking respondents to choose between neighbors aims to capture social intolerance - i.e. the unwillingness to accept persons or groups with values and behaviors different from one’s own by means of a co-existence (e.g. Dunn, Orellana & Singh 2009; Kirchner, Freitag & Rapp 2011) –, which constitutes a fundamental threat to social cohesion (e.g. Vollhardt, Migacheva & Tropp 2009). Our main argument, consistent with the literature on social sorting, is that the alignment of certain salient social attributes along with political ones fuels social intolerance. References Dunn, K., Orellana, S. & Singh, S. (2009): “Legislative Diversity and Social Tolerance: How Multiparty Systems Lead to Tolerant Citizens”. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19(3): 283-312. Harteveld, E. (2021): “Ticking all the boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization”. Electoral Studies, 72. Huber, G. A. & Malhotra, N. (2017): “Political Homophily in Social Relationships: Evidence from Online Dating Behavior”. The Journal of Politics, 79(1): 269-283. Iyengar, S., Sood, G. & Lelkes, Y. (2012): “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3): 405-431. Kirchner, A., Freitag, M. & Rapp, C. (2011): “Crafting tolerance: the role of political institutions in a comparative perspective”. European Political Science Review, 3(2): 201-227. Knudsen, E. (2021): “Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems? Comparing Affective Polarization Towards Voters and Parties in Norway and the United States”. Scandinavian Political Studies, 44(1): 34-44. Mason, L. (2016): “A Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1): 351-377. Mason, L. (2018): Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N. & Levendusky, M. (2018): “The Economic Consequences of Partisanship in a Polarized Era”. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1): 5-18. Tocal, M. & Thomson, Z. A. (2023): “Social trust and affective polarization in Spain (2014–19)”. Electoral Studies, 81. Vollhardt, J. K., Migacheva, K. & Tropp, L. R. (2009): “Social Cohesion and Tolerance for Group Differences”. In: de Rivera, J. (Ed.) Handbook on Building Cultures of Peace. Peace Psychology Book Series. New York: Springer, pp.139-152.