Discrimination, Group Consciousness, and the Politicization of Sexual Minorities (with Jean-François Daoust, Bélen Abdala and Ruth Dassonneville)
Abstract: Marginalization and discrimination are often expected to discourage political engagement. Yet, sexual minorities, despite experiencing persistent social and (state-sponsored) discrimination, often participate in politics at higher rates than heterosexuals. Why does discrimination appear to politicize rather than demobilize them? We argue that discrimination politicizes marginalized people by transforming politics into a personally consequential domain in which political conflict becomes tied to individuals’ rights and dignity. We develop a theory of politicization among sexual minorities that considers the role of group consciousness as well as individual-level experiences of discrimination. We conceptualize politicization as a multidimensional process encompassing cognitive and psychological mobilization, attitudinal mobilization, and behavioral mobilization. Using original cross-national survey data from 13 democracies, we find strong evidence for both pathways. Sexual minorities display higher levels of politicization than heterosexual individuals, while experiences of discrimination are associated with substantially higher levels of politicization across multiple dimensions of political life. At the same time, politicization remains selective rather than generalized: discrimination intensifies attitudes primarily on identity-relevant political domains rather than across all political issues. These findings provide insights into how discrimination can politicize marginalized identities and contribute to broader patterns of political conflict and democratic engagement.
Privilege and Prejudice: Social Status as a driver of Partisan Dislike and Unfair Treatment (with Markus Wagner)
Working draft is available.
Abstract: Why are some out-partisans disliked more than others? While previous works have emphasized ideological divergence, party behavior, and social interactions as key drivers, we examine how social status—an overlooked factor—contributes to out-partisan dislike and discriminatory attitudes. Drawing on original survey data from 10 countries, we find that, even after accounting for ideological differences, larger social status gaps between individuals (and their co-partisans) and out-partisans increase out-partisan dislike and discriminatory attitudes. Contrary to a straightforward “resentment” thesis, however, dislike is not strongest towards higher-status out-partisans; rather, lower-status out-partisans face more pronounced dislike. These status-driven biases translate into discriminatory attitudes, with respondents more likely to oppose out-partisans serving in public functions or organizing political events. Importantly, the findings also reveal notable differences between subjective and objective measures of social status, suggesting that what people perceive about other’s status matters more than actual differences. By showing that status perceptions—whether real or imagined—can deepen partisan divides, this research highlights the importance of social structures beyond ideology in shaping affective polarization. In light of these findings, we discuss potential remedies that might help reduce status-driven affective polarization.
Sources of Ideological Images of Opposing Party Supporters across 12 Countries (with Markus Wagner, Eelco Harteveld and Alexander Dalheimer)
Full draft available.
Abstract: In a polarized political landscape, how do individuals form images of opposing party supporters, and how accurate are these perceptions? In this study, we investigate the factors influencing individuals’ perceptions of the ideological extremity and homogeneity of their political out-group. This is important because ideological (mis)perceptions of out-party supporters can serve as a strong catalyst for hostility towards these groups. We explore two sources that citizens may use to form perceptions of out-partisans. As a ‘vertical’ source, we expect individuals to use party elites’ extremity and homogeneity as cues and project these onto the parties’ supporters. As a ‘horizontal’ source, we expect individuals to also consider the actual ideological extremity and homogeneity of opposing party supporters, which they might be aware of indirectly (through media or other mechanisms) or directly (through their own network). In addition, we expect that the diversity of political options available in a person’s personal social network will moderate which cues they will rely on. We test our expectations about the sources of these perceptions, as well as how they steer citizens towards an (in)accurate understanding, using survey data from 13 democracies. We use novel items about the perceived ideological homogeneity and extremity of political outgroups, as well as information on respondents’ own social network. By analyzing the interplay between vertical and horizontal cues in shaping (mis)perceptions, this research contributes to understanding of how political groups form mental images of each other, which in turn sheds light on the foundations of hostility between political camps.
Multidimensional Party Competition and Out-Partisan Hostility (with Markus Wagner)
Full draft available.
Abstract: Hostility towards supporters of opposing political parties has been a subject of considerable scholarly attention. Existing research suggests that elite ideological polarization is key determinant of out-partisan dislike. However, the impact of party behavior in a multidimensional political space is not yet fully understood. While studies suggest that party polarization on social and economic dimensions might differently influence feelings towards out-partisans, it remains unclear under which conditions party extremity on one dimension exerts a more pronounced influence than the other, or if party extremity on different dimensions reinforces or mitigates each other’s impact. This paper presents a theoretical framework that bridges both party- and citizen-level factors to explain how party position extremity affects dislike towards out-partisans in a multidimensional political space. Using novel survey data from 12 countries combined with the Global Party Survey, we find that party extremity on both social and economic dimensions leads to stronger dislike toward out-party supporters. At the party level, we show that the salience of a dimension to the party and the level of party unity on that dimension influence this relationship. At the citizen level, we test whether the salience of a dimension to the citizen and the citizen’s ideological position relative to the party moderate the effect of party extremity but find no support for these arguments. Overall, our findings we suggest that party behavior is a key driver of dislike towards supporters of opposing parties.
Evolution of Elite Ideological Polarization in Western Europe: Multidimensional Trends
Full draft is available.
Abstract: Has party polarization in Western Europe increased over time? Despite significant interest in ideological polarization, our understanding of the extent of elite ideological polarization across multiple dimensions of political conflict remains limited. Using data from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey spanning from 1999 to 2023, this research documents trends in ideological polarization over time among the supply side in 13 Western European democracies across the traditional left-right, economic, GAL/TAN, and European integration dimensions. The findings reveal a noticeable increase in party polarization across all dimensions except for the European integration dimension, although levels and trends differ between countries. Moreover, party polarization levels vary across these dimensions and show only moderate correlation. Additionally, this research investigates the multidimensional nature of political conflict among different party families, demonstrating the multidimensionality of politics even among mainstream parties, albeit to a lesser extent compared to radical left and right parties.
The Quality of the Information Environment and Perceptual Accuracy of Party Positions (with Oguzhan Alkan)
Working draft is available.
Abstract: Normative theories expect citizens to cast informed and considered votes for representative democracies to function effectively. Previous studies have primarily focused on citizen- and party-level factors to assess whether citizens tend to live up to the normative ideal of democratic citizenship. It is well established that voters tend to be more knowledgeable about parties’ ideological stances as election day approaches, despite being relatively uninformed outside of electoral contexts. However, our understanding is limited to established democracies, where citizens have access to abundant information about parties’ platforms. In this study, we shift the focus to an understudied contextual factor to explain (1) how accurate citizens’ perceptions of parties are, and (2) whether their perceptions improve when exposed to relevant information: the media environment. When citizens lack access to unbiased information about parties’ ideological positions, it becomes particularly challenging to become informed. Using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Integrated Module, which covers 57 countries and 174 elections over 20 years (1996-2021), we show that (1) citizens are more accurate in their perceptions of parties’ ideological stances in free-media environments, and (2) these perceptions improve when exposed to more information, but only in free-media environments.
Experiences of Discrimination and Out-Partisan Hostility (with Markus Wagner, Isabella Rebasso, Elena Heinz and Alexander Dalheimer)
Ongoing work.