Im International Journal of Public Opinion Research ist ein neuer Beitrag von David Schieferdecker, Philippe Joly und Thorsten Faas erschienen: Unter dem Titel „Affective Polarization Between Opinion-Based Groups in a Context of Low Partisan Discord: Measuring Its Prevalence and Consequences” untersuchen die Autoren das Phänomen der affektiven Polarisierung im Kontext der COVID-19 Pandemie in Deutschland.

Abstract:

Affective polarization has been primarily studied as a phenomenon between partisans. Recently, Hobolt, Leeper, & Tilley (2021) showed in the context of Brexit that affective polarization can also materialize around opinion-based groups, that is, political identities that form around extraordinary issues and cut through partisan lines. We generalize their findings by documenting the emergence of affective polarization around a new political conflict in a national context of low partisan discord. Specifically, we study divisions around the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, a multiparty system where all established parties supported certain freedom restrictions to contain the pandemic. Drawing on numerous indicators and a survey experiment from a representative online panel study, we explored the (a) prevalence, (b) consequences, and (c) context of affective polarization between supporters and opponents of COVID-19 containment policies. We found that the majority of supporters and a minority of opponents showed indications of affective polarization. Affectively polarized citizens showed various group biases that make productive political and social interactions less likely. Affective polarization was stable over time and different from partisan and sociostructural conflicts. We raise questions for future research and discuss what it means for democracy when deep political rifts are not captured by main parties in a party system.

Schieferdecker, D., Joly, P., & Faas, T. (2024). Affective Polarization Between Opinion-Based Groups in a Context of Low Partisan Discord: Measuring Its Prevalence and Consequences. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36(2), edae009. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae009.

Eine Open Access Version ist hier abrufbar.