The Power of Perceived Threat: Examining the Differential Effects of Realistic and Symbolic Threat on Partisan Prejudice

Affective polarization and partisan prejudice have been on the rise in the United States, and similar trends are discernible in European multiparty systems, albeit less researched. This paper aims to address this gap by looking into the origins of partisan prejudice in Europe through the lens of intergroup threat. There is ample evidence showing the relation between immigration threat and ethnic prejudice. But does intergroup threat affect partisan prejudice? Recent research lends initial support for this idea by demonstrating that intergroup threat is related to affective polarization, meaning when people see immigration or political extremism as a threat to their ingroup, they tend to perceive partisan outgroups more negatively. In this paper, the focus lies on the differential effects of symbolic and realistic threats. My hypotheses include that (1) symbolic and realistic threat increase prejudice towards outpartisans, (2) this relationship is moderated by party identification and ideological extremity, and (3) mainstream and extreme outparties differentially affect realistic and symbolic threat. These hypotheses are tested first within a correlational cross-sectional survey including 12 countries, and further through an online experiment, where threat is manipulated. The manipulation involves a writing task, where participants are asked to describe how outpartisans pose a threat to their safety, economic stability, or wellbeing (realistic threat) or to their values, beliefs, or worldview (symbolic threat). For exploratory analyses, these responses will be analyzed through topic modelling. The findings from this research contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the origins of partisan prejudice, thereby facilitating the identification of effective strategies for its reduction.