IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v12y2024a8531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Affective Polarization Among Radical‐Right Supporters: Dislike Differentiation and Democratic Support

Author

Listed:
  • Jochem Vanagt

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium / Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Katrin Praprotnik

    (The seventh faculty: Center for Society, Science and Communication, University of Graz, Austria)

  • Luana Russo

    (Department of Political Science, Maastricht University, The Netherlands)

  • Markus Wagner

    (Department of Government, University of Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Partisan affective polarization describes the extent to which different partisans like or dislike each other. In Europe, affective dislike is strongest towards the radical-right, as mainstream voters tend to hold particularly negative affect towards radical-right supporters. This is an important pattern given the recent high levels of support for radical-right parties, for example in the Netherlands, France, and Italy. However, the perspective of radical-right supporters themselves has been largely neglected in existing work. To remedy this, we examine how radical-right supporters feel towards supporters of mainstream parties. We develop a new concept, dislike differentiation, which refers to the extent to which radical-right supporters differentiate in the dislike they harbor towards mainstream parties. We use two new studies that sampled 2,628 radical-right supporters in nine European polities. We find that some supporters reject all mainstream parties, whereas others follow more typical patterns of political competition along ideological lines. Dislike differentiation among radical-right supporters is linked to key socio-political phenomena, including party attachment, ideological extremism, satisfaction with democracy, and political tolerance. By creating a novel typology combining out-party dislike and dislike differentiation, we show that anti-system radical-right supporters, characterized by high out-party dislike and low dislike differentiation, are the least supportive of democracy. By centering our analysis on those voters that receive and radiate the highest levels of negative affect, we advance knowledge on what fosters polarized attitudes and intolerance in Europe’s multiparty systems in times when the electoral popularity of the radical-right is surging.

Suggested Citation

  • Jochem Vanagt & Katrin Praprotnik & Luana Russo & Markus Wagner, 2024. "Affective Polarization Among Radical‐Right Supporters: Dislike Differentiation and Democratic Support," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v12:y:2024:a:8531
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.8531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/8531
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.8531?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harteveld, Eelco & Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth, 2018. "Why Women Avoid the Radical Right: Internalized Norms and Party Reputations," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 369-384, April.
    2. Hahm, Hyeonho & Hilpert, David & König, Thomas, 2024. "Divided We Unite: The Nature of Partyism and the Role of Coalition Partnership in Europe," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 69-87, February.
    3. Sabrina J Mayer & Luana Russo, 2024. "What one is not: a new scale to measure Negative Party Identity in multiparty systems," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2887-2906, June.
    4. Gidron, Noam & Adams, James & Horne, Will, 2023. "Who Dislikes Whom? Affective Polarization between Pairs of Parties in Western Democracies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 997-1015, July.
    5. Helbling, Marc & Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2020. "Social divides in the age of globalization," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(6), pages 1187-1210.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Toshkov, Dimiter & Brummel, Lars & Carroll, Brendan & Yesilkagit, Kutsal, 2024. "Public Policy Attitudes and Political Polarization in the Netherlands," OSF Preprints bz6n9, Center for Open Science.
    2. Andres Reiljan & Lorenzo Cicchi & Diego Garzia, 2023. "Party placement in the void: the European political space in 10 years of cross-national Voting Advice Applications," RSCAS Working Papers 2023/20, European University Institute.
    3. Ann-Kathrin Reinl & Daniela Braun, 2023. "Who holds the union together? Citizens’ preferences for European Union cohesion in challenging times," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 390-409, June.
    4. Albers, Thilo N. H. & Kersting, Felix & Kosse, Fabian, 2022. "Income Misperception and Populism," IZA Discussion Papers 15673, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Choi, Tsan-Ming & Guo, Shu & Luo, Suyuan, 2020. "When blockchain meets social-media: Will the result benefit social media analytics for supply chain operations management?," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Cornago Bonal, Luis & Raffaelli, Francesco, 2024. "Political Identities and the Politics of Workplace Cooperation," OSF Preprints j43tn, Center for Open Science.
    7. Thilo N. H. Albers & Felix Kersting & Fabian Kosse, 2022. "Income Misperception and Populism," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1177, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    8. Ximeng Fang & Sven Heuser & Lasse S. Stötzer, 2023. "How In-Person Conversations Shape Political Polarization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from a Nationwide Initiative," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 270, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    9. Thilo N. H. Albers & Felix Kersting & Fabian Kosse, 2022. "Income Misperception and Populism," CESifo Working Paper Series 10059, CESifo.
    10. Elena Lucia Croitoru, 2024. "Study Of Romania'S Digital Divide From The Perspective Of The Impact Of Human Capital And Access To Internet On Internet Banking Usage," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 19(1), pages 7-17, March.
    11. Albers, Thilo Nils Hendrik & Kersting, Felix & Kosse, Fabian, 2022. "Income Misperception and Populism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 344, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v12:y:2024:a:8531. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.