This is not US: Measuring Polarization in Multiparty Systems

Polarization has been at the heart of scholarly debate in US political science for over two decades and is currently raising increasing attention in Europe as well. To understand this inherently multifaced concept, it is key to investigate the interplay of the ideological side (the positioning on a conservative-progressive continuum) with the affective one (the intensity of like-dislike towards different groups). Engaging with this interplay in the European context requires tackling the relative lack of knowledge we have about affective polarization tout court, linked to very limited insights into measurements in multiparty systems (Wagner 2020). So, if the debate in the US is ongoing (e.g., Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012; Iyengar et al. 2019), in Europe it just started (see Reiljan, 2020; Wagner, 2020). Studying affective polarization in the European context comes with several obstacles. The United States, where most research on affective polarization has taken place, is a society with a very different social setting from Europe, and a different sense of in- and out-groups, heavily influenced by having a two-party system. In multiparty systems, however, people can be more polygamous in their party-allegiance, since there is not such a strong, obvious division between two groups. Polarization might, therefore, show different patterns outside of the US. Some pioneering studies on the presence and nature of affective polarization in European multiparty systems have recently been conducted (Reiljan, 2020; Wagner, 2020). However, the European data collection (e.g., CSES) provides only one indicator of affective polarization: like-dislike scores. As previous research has shown, the precise questions employed to gain knowledge on affective polarization are of a pivotal importance to understand its nature (Druckman & Levendusky, 2019). We embrace this research agenda and have created the European Ideological and Affective Polarization Survey (EIAPS). EIAPS is designed to test multiple measures of polarization in multiparty contexts. It combines the assessment of ideological divergence and extremity with measurements of affect towards both political elites and citizens (e.g., thermometer ratings, social distance, dehumanization). EIAPS also incorporates related concepts such as political trust, interest, and efficacy. We employ this tool in a convenience sample of 380 international students from nine different European nationalities at Maastricht University. We investigate how each measure of affective polarization performs in relation to others, and vis-à-vis the measures of ideological polarization. Druckman, J. N., & Levendusky, M. S. (2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly 83(1), 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003 Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038 Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., Westwood, S.J. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 Reiljan, A. (2020). ‘Fear and loathing across party lines’ (also) in Europe: Affective polarisation in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research 59(2), 376-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12351 Wagner, M. (2020). Affective polarization in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies, (December 2019), 102199. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/j7d4t