Party Dyads and In-Out-Party Differences
Polarization: ideological affective mass vertical
Data: cses
Use Cases: @gidron_american_2020 @bantel_camps_2023 @adams_can_2023 @comellasbonsfills_when_2022
In political systems with just two parties, polarization describes the distance between these two poles. Therefore, much of the classical American polarization literature, ideological or affective, relied on the difference between a respondent’s inparty and outparty, either based on like-dislike scores or the perception of the parties’ positions.
Party dyads can be seen as a related form of measurement in multiparty systems, where the difference between two selected parties is taken as an indication of general polarization. This can be done with just one or with multiple dyads. It describes a very tangible form of polarization that can be used to show how relationships to individual parties are affected (Bantel (2023)) or to compare polarization levels between two- and multiparty systems (Gidron et al. (2020)).
Use cases
Publications that use this measure:
| Title | Authors |
|---|---|
| Can’t We All Just Get Along? |
|
| Camps, not just parties |
|
| When polarised feelings towards parties spread to voters |
|
| Misinformation, Narratives, and Intergroup Attitudes: Evidence from India |
|
| American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective |
|
| Affective Polarization and Misinformation Belief |
|
| Affective polarization in a word: Open-ended and self-coded evaluations of partisan affect |
|
| Election campaigns and the cyclical nature of emotions |
|