This study investigates the impact of electoral fraud and election outcomes on mass affective polarization across 149 elections in 48 countries from 1996 to 2020. By analyzing citizens’ assessments of political parties using a like–dislike scale from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems and electoral integrity scores from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (Tufis and Hudson, 2022), this research reveals that manipulative electoral strategies directly contribute to increased mass affective polarization. These findings remain consistent when using alternative measurements of electoral integrity offered by Perceptions of Electoral Integrity data (Garnett et al., 2022). In addition, this study identifies that winning–losing status (i.e., whether an individual voted for the winning party in the previous election) plays a role in amplifying mass affective polarization. I posit that those who voted for the losing party may reconcile their support for the losing party by forming stronger associations with other political parties compared with supporters of the winning party. Furthermore, the research uncovers that the relationship between low electoral integrity and heightened affective polarization is more pronounced among individuals who voted for the winning party. These findings have significant implications for our understanding of mass polarization, democratic legitimacy, and winner–loser status.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvarezR. Michael, HallThad E. & HydeSusan D. (Eds.) 2008. Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation. The Brookings Institute.
2.
AndersonChristopher. 2005. Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
3.
AnsolabehereS. and PersilyN.. 2008. “Vote fraud in the eye of the beholder: The role of public opinion in the challenge to voter identification requirements.” Harvard Law Review, 121(7):1737–1774.
4.
ArbatliEkim and RosenbergDina. 2021. “United we stand, divided we rule: How political polarization erodes democracy.” Democratization, 28(2):285–307.
5.
BaghdasaryanVardan, IannantuoniGiovanna, and MaggianValeria. 2019. “Electoral fraud and voter turnout: An experimental study.” European Journal of Political Economy, 58:203–219.
6.
BakshyEytan, MessingSolomon, and AdamicLada A.. 2015. “Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook.” Science (New York, N.Y.), 348(6239):1130–1132.
7.
BaronJonathan and HersheyJohn C.. 1988. “Outcome bias in decision evaluation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4):569–579.
8.
BilligMichael and TajfelHenri. 1973. “Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1):27–52.
9.
BirchSarah. 2008. “Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis.” Electoral Studies, 27(2):305–320.
10.
BirchSarah. 2011. Electoral malpractice. Oxford University Press.
11.
BoltonGary E., BrandtsJordi, and OckenfelsAxel. 2005. “Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries.” The Economic Journal, 115(506):1054–1076.
12.
BowlerShaun, BrunellThomas, DonovanTodd, and GronkePaul. 2015. “Election administration and perceptions of fair elections.” Electoral Studies, 38:1–9.
13.
BrownJonathan D. and DuttonKeith A.. 1995. “The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4):712–722.
14.
BussAllan R. 1978. “Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11):1311–1321.
15.
CarrerasMiguel and İrepoğluYasemin. 2013. “Trust in elections, vote buying, and turnout in Latin America.” Electoral Studies, 32(4):609–619.
16.
CiglerAllan J. and GetterRussell. 1977. “Conflict reduction in the post-election period: A test of the depolarization thesis.” Western Political Quarterly, 30(3):363–376.
17.
CinelliMatteo, De Francisci MoralesGianmarco, GaleazziAlessandro, QuattrociocchiWalter, and StarniniMichele. 2021. “The echo chamber effect on social media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9):e2023301118.
DahlRobert A. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. University of Chicago Press.
20.
DaltonRussell J. 2008. “The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences.” Comparative Political Studies, 41(7):899–920.
21.
DaltonRussell J. 2013. Citizens politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies (6th Edition).. Sage & C.Q. Press.
22.
DaoustJean-François, BlaisAndré, and Péloquin-SkulskiGabrielle. 2021. “What do voters do when they prefer a leader from another party?” Party Politics, 27(2):308–316.
23.
DittoPeter H. and LopezDavid F.. 1992. “Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4):568–584.
24.
ElklitJørgen. 2012. What kind of animal is electoral integrity. In Pre-IPSA Workshop on “Challenges of electoral integrity” (Vol. 7), Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
25.
ElklitJørgen and ReynoldsAndrew. 2005. “A framework for the systematic study of election quality.” Democratization, 12(2):147–162.
26.
EndersAdam M. and ArmalyMiles T.. 2019. “The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization.” Political Behavior, 41(3):815–839.
27.
ErisenCengiz, LodgeMilton, and TaberCharles S.. 2014. “Affective contagion in effortful political thinking.” Political Psychology, 35(2):187–206.
28.
FarrallStephen, Wilks-HeegStuart, StruthersRobert, and GrayEmily. 2022. “Who are the victims of electoral fraud in Great Britain? Evidence from survey research.” British Politics, 17(3):333–352.
29.
FestingerLeon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
30.
FisherJustin and SällbergYohanna. 2020. “Electoral integrity – The winner takes it all? Evidence from three British general elections.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(3):404–420.
31.
Fortin-RittbergerJessica, HarfstPhilipp, and DinglerSarah C.. 2017. “The costs of electoral fraud: Establishing the link between electoral integrity, winning an election, and satisfaction with democracy.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 27(3):350–368.
32.
GallagherMichael. 1991. “Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems.” Electoral Studies, 10(1):33–51.
33.
GallagherMichael. 1998. “The political impact of electoral system change in Japan and New Zealand, 1996.” Party Politics, 4(2):203–228.
34.
GarnettHolly Ann, JamesTobey S., and MacGregorMadison. 2022. “Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, (PEI-8.0).” Harvard Dataverse, V1; doi: 10.7910/DVN/YSNYXD
35.
GidronNoam, AdamsJames, and HorneWill. 2019. “Toward a comparative research agenda on affective polarization in mass publics.” APSA Comparative Politics Newsletter, 29:30–36.
36.
GidronNoam, AdamsJames, and HorneWill. 2023. “Who dislikes whom? Affective polarization between pairs of parties in western democracies.” British Journal of Political Science, 53(3):997–1015.
37.
GidronNoam, AdamsJames, and HorneWill. 2018. How ideology, economics and institutions shape affective polarization in democratic polities. In Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.
38.
GilbertDaniel T. 1991. “How mental systems believe.” American Psychologist, 46(2):107–119.
39.
GouldDeborah B. 2012. Political despair. In HoggettP & ThompsonS. (Eds.). Politics and the emotions: The affective turn in contemporary political studies (pp. 95–114). Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
40.
GrahamMatthew H and SvolikMilan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review, 114(2):392–409.
41.
GranbergDonald and BrownThad A.. 1992. “The perception of ideological distance.” Western Political Quarterly, 45(3):727–750.
42.
HarteveldEelco. 2021. “Fragmented foes: Affective polarization in the multiparty context of the Netherlands.” Electoral Studies, 71:102332.
43.
HernándezEnrique, AnduizaEva, and RicoGuillem. 2021. “Affective polarization and the salience of elections.” Electoral Studies, 69:102203.
44.
HillEleanor, SobolewskaMaria, Wilks-HeegStuart, and BorkowskaMagda. 2017. “Explaining electoral fraud in an advanced democracy: Fraud vulnerabilities, opportunities and facilitating mechanisms in British elections.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(4):772–789.
45.
HuntingtonHeidi E. 2020. “Partisan cues and internet memes: Early evidence for motivated skepticism in audience message processing of spreadable political media.” Atlantic Journal of Communication, 28(3):194–208.
46.
HydeSusan. 2008. How international election observers detect and deter fraud. In AlvarezM, HallT, & HydeS. (Eds.) Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation (pp. 201–215). The Brookings Institute.
47.
IyengarShanto, LelkesYphtach, LevenduskyMatthew, MalhotraNeil, and WestwoodSean J.. 2019. “The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1):129–146.
48.
IyengarShanto, SoodGaurav, and LelkesYphtach. 2012. “Affect, not ideology.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3):405–431.
49.
IyengarShanto and WestwoodSean J.. 2015. “Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization.” American Journal of Political Science, 59(3):690–707.
50.
JarabinskýIvan. 2017. “Strategies of actors influencing electoral integrity: A case study of the Czech Republic.” Politologický časopis-Czech Journal of Political Science, 24(3):249–274.
51.
JustAida. 2021. “Party system polarization, citizenship, and immigrant party allegiances in Western Europe.” International Migration Review, 55(3):843–872.
52.
KalmoeNathan P and MasonLilliana. 2022. Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.
53.
KarpJeffrey A. and BrockingtonDavid. 2005. “Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries.” The Journal of Politics, 67(3):825–840.
54.
KarpJeffrey A., NaiAlessandro, and NorrisPippa. 2018. “Dial ‘F’ for Fraud: Explaining citizens’ suspicions about elections.” Electoral Studies, 53:11–19.
55.
KolevKiril. 2014. “The contingent effect of institutions: Electoral formulas, ethnic polarization, and election quality.” Electoral Studies, 35:200–214.
56.
KraftPatrick W., LodgeMilton, and TaberCharles S.. 2015. “Why people “don’t trust the evidence” motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1):121–133.
57.
KundaZ. 1990. “The case for motivated reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin, 108(3):480–498.
58.
LaaksoMarkku and TaageperaRein. 1979. “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies, 12(1):3–27.
59.
LaukaAlban, McCoyJennifer, and FiratRengin B.. 2018. “Mass partisan polarization: Measuring a relational concept.” American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1):107–126.
60.
LeemannLucas and BochslerDaniel. 2014. “A systematic approach to study electoral fraud.” Electoral Studies, 35:33–47.
61.
LehoucqFabrice. 2003. “Electoral fraud: Causes, types, and consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1):233–256.
62.
LevenduskyM. S. and SteculaD. A.. 2021. We need to talk: How cross-party dialogue reduces affective polarization. Cambridge University Press.
63.
LevitskyS. and ZiblattD.. 2020. “The crisis of American democracy.” American Educator, 44(3):6.
64.
LewandowskyStephan, EckerUllrich K. H., and CookJohn. 2017. “Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4):353–369.
65.
LindbergS., DüpontI. N., HigashijimaM., KavasogluY. B., MarquardtK. L, BernhardM., DöringH., HickenA., LaebensM., MedzihorskyJ., NeundorfA., ReuterO. J, Ruth–LovellS., WeghorstK. R., WiesehomeierN., WrightJ., AlizadaN., BederkeP., GastaldiL., … SeimB.. 2022. Varieties of party identity and organization (V–Party) dataset V2. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. 10.23696/vpartydsv2
66.
LupuNoam. 2015. “Party polarization and mass partisanship: A comparative perspective.” Political Behavior, 37(2):3, 331–356.
67.
MaldonadoA and SeligsonM. 2014. Electoral trust in Latin America. In NorrisP, FrankR. W, & i ComaF. M. (Eds.) Advancing electoral integrity. Oxford University Press.
68.
MarunaShadd and MannRuth E.. 2006. “A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions.” Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2):155–177.
69.
MasonLilliana. 2016. “A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1):351–377.
70.
McCannJames A. and DomínguezJorge I.. 1998. “Mexicans react to electoral fraud and political corruption: An assessment of public opinion and voting behavior.” Electoral Studies, 17(4):483–503.
71.
McCoyJennifer and SomerMurat. 2019. “Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1):234–271.
72.
MoehlerDevra C. and LindbergStaffan I.. 2009. “Narrowing the legitimacy gap: Turnovers as a cause of democratic consolidation.” The Journal of Politics, 71(4):1448–1466.
73.
NorrisP. 2012. Are there global norms and universal standards of electoral integrity and malpractice? Comparing public and expert perceptions. HKS Working Paper No. RWP12-010.
74.
NorrisPippa. 2013. “Does the world agree about standards of electoral integrity? Evidence for the diffusion of global norms.” Electoral Studies, 32(4):576–588.
75.
NorrisP. 2014a. Introduction: Challenges of electoral integrity. In NorrisP, FrankR. W, & i ComaF. M. (Eds.) Advancing electoral integrity. Oxford University Press.
76.
NorrisP. 2014b. Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge University Press.
77.
NorrisP., ElklitJ., and ReynoldsA.. 2014. Methods and evidence. In NorrisP, FrankR. W, & i ComaF. M. (Eds.) Advancing electoral integrity. Oxford University Press.
78.
NybladeBenjamin and ReedSteven R.. 2008. “Who cheats? Who loots? Political competition and corruption in Japan, 1947-1993.” American Journal of Political Science, 52(4):926–941.
79.
O’DonnellG. and SchmitterP. C.. 1986. Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Johns Hopkins University Press.
80.
PantaziMyrto, HaleScott, and KleinOlivier. 2021. “Social and cognitive aspects of the vulnerability to political misinformation.” Political Psychology, 42(S1):267–304.
81.
PierceDouglas R. and LauRichard R.. 2019. “Polarization and correct voting in U.S. presidential elections.” Electoral Studies, 60:102048.
82.
ReiljanAndres., GarziaDiego., Ferreira DA SilvaFrederico., and TrechselAlexander H.. 2024. “Patterns of affective polarization toward parties and leaders across the democratic world.” American Political Science Review, 118(2):654–670.
83.
ReuterOra John and SzakonyiDavid. 2021. “Electoral manipulation and regime support: Survey evidence from Russia.” World Politics, 73(2):275–314.
84.
RogowskiJon C. and SutherlandJoseph L.. 2016. “How ideology fuels affective polarization.” Political Behavior, 38(2):485–508.
85.
RosasGuillermo. 2010. “Trust in elections and the institutional design of electoral authorities: Evidence from Latin America.” Electoral Studies, 29(1):74–90.
86.
RossL. and AndersonC. A. 1982. Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In SlovicP, KahnemanD, & TverskyA .(Eds.), Judgment under certainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 129–152). Cambridge University Press.
87.
ScarrowS. E. 2001. Germany: The mixed-member system as a political compromise. In ShugartM, & WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 55–69). OUP Oxford.
88.
SchedlerAndreas. 2002a. “The nested game of democratization by elections.” International Political Science Review, 23(1):103–122.
89.
SchedlerAndreas. 2002b. “Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation.” Journal of Democracy, 13(2):36–50.
90.
ShtudinerZe′ev, KleinGalit, and KantorJeffrey. 2017. “Who is responsible for economic failures? Self-serving bias and fundamental attribution error in political context.” Quality & Quantity, 51(1):335–350.
91.
SimpserA. 2013. Why governments and parties manipulate elections: Theory, practice, and implications. Cambridge University Press.
92.
SinghShane, LagoIgnacio, and BlaisAndré. 2011. “Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support.” Social Science Quarterly, 92(3):695–709.
93.
SoltF. 2016. The standardized world income inequality database. Available from: http://fsolt.org/swiid
94.
StiersDieter, DaoustJean-François, and BlaisAndré. 2018. “What makes people believe that their party won the election?” Electoral Studies, 55:21–29.
95.
SunsteinC. R. 1999. The Law of Group Polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, 91.
96.
SvolikMilan W. 2019. “Polarization versus democracy.” Journal of Democracy, 30(3):20–32.
97.
TaberCharles S. and LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, 50(3):755–769.
98.
TajfelHenri. 1970. “Experiments in intergroup discrimination.” Scientific American, 223(5):96–102.
99.
TajfelH. and TurnerJ. C. 1979. (). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G, & WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
100.
TaroucoG. 2017. Electoral governance in Latin America and the behaviour of oppositions. In GarnettH. A & ZavadskayaM. (Eds.), Electoral integrity and political regimes: Actors, strategies and consequences (pp. 79–99). Routledge.
Türkan İpekİşıl Zeynep. 2018. “Electoral integrity and election monitoring in Turkey.” Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1):143–168.
103.
UraJoseph Daniel and EllisChristopher R.. 2012. “Partisan moods: Polarization and the dynamics of mass party preferences.” The Journal of Politics, 74(1):277–291.
104.
van den BosKees and van ProoijenJan-Willem. 2001. “Referent cognitions theory: The psychology of voice depends on closeness of reference points.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4):616–626.
105.
van ProoijenJan-Willem, van den BosKees, LindE. Allan, and WilkeHenk A.M.. 2006. “How do people react to negative procedures? On the moderating role of authority’s biased attitudes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5):632–645.
106.
VosslerChristian A. and KerkvlietJoe. 2003. “A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(3):631–649.
107.
WagnerMarkus. 2021. “Affective polarization in multi-party systems.” Electoral Studies, 69:102199.
108.
WardDalston G. and TavitsMargit. 2019. “How partisan affect shapes citizens’ perception of the political world.” Electoral Studies, 60:102045.
109.
WebsterSteven W. and AbramowitzAlan I.. 2017. “The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate.” American Politics Research, 45(4):621–647.
110.
WeinerB., AmirkhanJ., FolkesV S., and VeretteJ A.. 1987. “An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2):316–324.
111.
WeinerBernard, RussellDan, and LermanDavid. 1979. “The cognition-emotion process in achievement-related contexts.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7):1211–1220.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
