Affective polarization is a recent yet widespread phenomenon in democracies that significantly impacts various aspects of politics. In this paper, we argue that it can also shape citizens’ political beliefs through party cues. Using a panel survey experiment in Spain, we examine the extent to which partisan signals influence citizens’ attitudes toward a non-party-branded issue, specifically the ban on prostitution, and how affective polarization moderates this effect. Our results underscore the role of affective polarization in moderating the influence of partisan cues, particularly among highly polarized individuals. These findings highlight the capacity of affective polarization not only to deepen political divisions but also to expand the scope of partisan influence to non-politicized and neutral issues, offering new insights into its potential impact on attitude formation and decision-making.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001
2.
AchenC. H.BartelsL. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400888740
3.
AzroutR.de VreeseC. (2018). The moderating role of identification and campaign exposure in party cueing effects. West European Politics, 41(2), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2017.1371957
4.
BandaK. K.CluveriusJ. (2018). Elite polarization, party extremity, and affective polarization. Journal of Politics, 80(1), 119–128.
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
6.
BantelI. (2023). Camps, not just parties: The dynamic foundations of affective polarization in multi-party systems. Electoral Studies, 83, 102614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102614
7.
BarberM.PopeJ. C. (2024). Does issue importance attenuate partisan cue-taking?Political Science Research and Methods, 12, 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.28
8.
BonacheH.DelgadoN.PinaA.Hernández-CabreraJ. A. (2021). Prostitution policies and attitudes toward prostitutes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 1991–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01810-w
9.
BoscoA.VerneyS. (2020). Polarization in Southern Europe: Elites, party conflicts and negative partisanship. South European Society and Politics, 25(3–4), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2020.1971444
10.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A.DuellD. (2013). Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46(11), 1485–1517.
11.
BraderT.De SioL.PaparoA.TuckerJ. A. (2020). “Where you lead, I will follow”: Partisan cueing on high-salience issues in a Turbulent Multiparty System. Political Psychology, 41(4), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12651
BroockmanD. E.KallaJ. L.WestwoodS. J. (2021). Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Journal of Politics, 83(3), 1234–1241.
14.
BullockJ. G. (2019). Party cues. In SuhayE.GrofmanB.TrechselA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of electoral persuasion (Online publication). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190860806.013.2
15.
BullockJ. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000165
16.
CalvoK.PenadésA. (2015). Actitudes hacia la regulación de la prostitución en España: Una aproximación a partir de dato de encuesta. Teoría y Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico, 17, 79–96.
17.
ChongD.MullinixK. J. (2019). Information and issue constraints on party cues. American Politics Research, 47(6), 1209–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18803887
18.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
DiasN.LelkesY. (2022). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science, 66(3), 775–790.
21.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.
22.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2021a). Affective polarization, local contexts, and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behavior, 5(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5
23.
DruckmanJ. N.KlarS.KrupnikovY.LevenduskyM.RyanJ. B. (2021b). How affective polarization shapes Americans’ political beliefs: A study of response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/8I1PUB
24.
Fernández-CornejoJ. A.EscotL.Belope-NguemaS.Cruz-CalderónS. F. (2020). La reforma del marco legal sobre prostitución. ¿Por qué varones y mujeres no piensan igual?International Review of Economic Policy-Revista Internacional de Política Económica, 2(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.7203/irep.2.2.19353
25.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
26.
GelmanA.HillJ.VehtariA. (2020). Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press.
27.
GidronN.AdamsJ.HorneW. (2019). Toward a comparative research agenda on affective polarization in mass publics. APSA-CP Newsletter, 29, 30–36.
28.
GrahamM. H.SvolikM. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000052
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
31.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604
32.
ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (2015). Causal inference for statistics, social, and biomedical sciences: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
33.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. 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
34.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
35.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.
36.
JonssonS.JakobssonN. (2017). Is buying sex morally wrong? Comparing attitudes toward prostitution using individual-level data across eight Western European countries. Women’s Studies International Forum, 61, 58–69.
KernanW. N.ViscoliC. M.MakuchR. W.BrassL. M.HorwitzR. I. (1999). Stratified randomization for clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00138-3
40.
LevenduskyM. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization?Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/693987
41.
McCoyJ.RahmanT.SomerM. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576
42.
MasonL. (2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 280–301.
43.
MerollaJ. L.StephensonL. B.ZechmeisterE. J. (2016). Deciding correctly: Variance in the effective use of party cues. In: BlaisA.LaslierJ.-F.Van der StraetenK. (Eds.), Voting experiments (pp. 19–42). Spring.
44.
MéndezM. (2020). Parties and party systems. In MuroD.LagoI. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Spanish politics (pp. 331–348). Oxford University Press.
RodríguezI.SantamaríaD.MillerL. (2022). Electoral competition and partisan affective polarization in Spain. South European Society and Politics, 27(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2022.2038492
48.
RogowskiJ.C.SutherlandJ. L. (2016). How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior, 38, 485–508.
49.
SheagleyG.CliffordS. (2024). No evidence that measuring moderators alters treatment effects. American Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12814
SlothuusR.BisgaardM. (2021). Party over pocketbook? How party cues influence opinion when citizens have a stake in policy. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 1090–1096. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000332
52.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346274.n163
53.
TorcalM. (2023). De votantes a hooligans: La polarización política en España. La Catarata.
54.
TorcalM.ComellasJ. M. (2022). Affective polarization in times of political instability and conflict: Spain from a comparative perspective. South European Society and Politics, 27(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2022.2044236
TorcalM.MartiniS.CartyE. (2024). Challenging by cueing? An investigation. Of party and leader cueing effects across mainstream and challenger party voters. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09950-w
57.
ValienteC. (2004). State feminism and central state debates on prostitution in post-authoritarian Spain. In OutshoornJ. (Ed.), The politics of prostitution: Women’s movements, democratic states and the globalization of sex commerce (pp. 205–224). Cambridge University Press.
WebsterS. W.AbramowitzA. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647.
60.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
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.
