We analyze the winner-loser gap in affective polarization. Using data from 37 countries over years 1996 – 2016 from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), we find that winners’ affective polarization is significantly greater than losers’, and the difference is due to winners’ consistently higher in-party favoritism. These findings are robust when controlling for partisanship and ideological distance to winning party. Although much of the literature focuses on the impact of out-party dislike on affective polarization, our results align with research in social identity theory indicating that intergroup discrimination is driven primarily by in-group favoritism rather than out-group dislike. Given that winners are more likely than losers to support their favored party’s violation of democratic norms, our work suggests that in-party favoritism is an important but overlooked contributor to problematic implications of affective polarization.
AbramowitzAWebsterS (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
2.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
3.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Losers’ Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
BallietDWuJDe DreuCKW (2014) Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin140(6): 1556–1581.
5.
BilligMTajfelH (1973) Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology3(1): 27–52.
6.
BlaisAMorin-ChasséASinghSP (2017) Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics23(2): 85–95.
7.
BrewerMB (1999) The psychology of prejudice: ingroup Love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues55(3): 429–444.
8.
CalanchiniJSchmidtKShermanJW, et al. (2022) The contributions of positive outgroup and negative ingroup evaluation to implicit bias favoring outgroups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(40): e2116924119.
9.
CarlinRELoveGJ (2018) Political competition, partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. British Journal of Political Science48: 115–139.
10.
CohenMJSmithAEMoseleyMW, et al. (2023) Winners’ consent? Citizen commitment to democracy when illiberal candidates win elections. American Journal of Political Science67(2): 261–276.
11.
DiasNLelkesY (2022) The nature of affective polarization: disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science66(3): 775–790.
12.
DuckittJMphuthingT (1998) Group identification and intergroup attitudes: a longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74: 80–85.
13.
FigueiredoALimongiF (2000) Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics32(2): 151–170.
14.
FinkelEJBailCACikaraM, et al. (2020) Political sectarianism in America: a poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion, and moralization poses a threat to democracy. Science370(6516): 533–536.
15.
GarziaDFerreira da SilvaFMayeS (2023) Affective polarization in comparative and longitudinal perspective. Public Opinion Quarterly87(1): 219–231.
16.
GidronNShefferL (2023) Differentiating the sources of post-election partisan affect warming. European Journal of Political Research63(3): 1155–1174.
17.
GidronNAdamsJHorneW (2020) American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GreeneS (1999) Understanding party identification: a social identity approach. Political Psychology20(2): 393–403.
19.
GreenwaldAGPettigrewTF (2014) With malice toward none and charity for some: ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist69(7): 669–684.
20.
HansenKMKosiara-PedersenK (2017) How campaigns polarize the electorate: political polarization as an effect of the minimal effect theory within a multi-party system. Party Politics23(3): 181–192.
21.
HarteveldE (2021) Fragmented foes: affective polarization in the multiparty context of The Netherlands. Electoral Studies71: 102332.
22.
HernándezEAnduizaERicoG (2021) Affective polarization and the salience of elections. Electoral Studies69: 102203.
23.
HuddyLMasonLAarøeL (2015) Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review109(1): 1–17.
24.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
25.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22(1): 129–146.
26.
JanssenL (2023) Sweet victory, bitter defeat: the amplifying effects of affective and perceived ideological polarization on the winner-loser gap in political support. European Journal of Political Research63: 455–477. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.12625.
27.
KingzetteJDruckmanJNKlarS, et al. (2021) How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opinion Quarterly85(2): 663–677.
28.
LeeAHYLelkesYHawkinsCB, et al. (2022) Negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship. Nature Human Behaviour6(7): 951–963.
29.
LelkesY (2021) Policy over party: comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization. Political Science Research and Methods9(1): 189–196.
30.
LelkesYWestwoodSJ (2017) The limits of partisan prejudice. Journal of Politics79(2): 485–501.
31.
LeVineRCampbellDT (1972) Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley.
32.
MartinDNaiA (2024) Deepening the rift: negative campaigning fosters affective polarization in multiparty elections. Electoral Studies87: 1027–1045.
33.
McCoyJSomerM (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 Science681(1): 234–271.
34.
MichelitchKUtychS (2018) Electoral cycle fluctuations in partisanship: global evidence from eighty-six countries. Journal of Politics80(2): 412–427.
35.
MoehlerD (2009) Critical citizens and submissive subjects: election losers and winners in africa. British Journal of Political Science39: 345–366.
36.
ReiljanA (2020) Fear and loathing across party lines’ (also) in Europe: affective polarisation in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research59(2): 376–396.
37.
ReiljanAGarziaDFerreira Da SilvaF, et al. (2023) Patterns of affective polarization toward parties and leaders across the democratic world. American Political Science Review118: 654–670.
38.
ScheepersDSpearsRDoosjeB, et al. (2003) Two functions of verbal intergroup discrimination: identity and instrumental motives as a result of group identification and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin29(5): 568–577.
39.
SegoviaC (2022) Affective polarization in low-partisanship societies. The case of Chile 1990–2021. Frontiers in Political Science4: 928586. DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2022.928586.
40.
ShefferL (2020) Partisan in-group bias before and after elections. Electoral Studies67: 102191.
41.
SimonovitsGMcCoyJLittvayL (2022) Democratic hypocrisy and out-group threat: explaining citizen support for democratic erosion. Journal of Politics84(3): 1806–1811.
42.
SinghSPThorntonJR (2019) Elections activate partisanship across countries. American Political Science Review113(1): 248–253.
43.
TurnerJCBrownRJTajfelH (1979) Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology9(2): 187–204.
44.
WagnerM (2021) Affective polarization in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies69: 102199.
45.
WannDLGrieveFG (2005) Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator behavior at sporting events: the importance of team identification and threats to social identity. The Journal of Social Psychology145(5): 531–545.
46.
WardDGTavitsM (2019) How partisan affect shapes citizens’ perception of the political world. Electoral Studies60: 102045.
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.
