Measuring Affective Polarisation in Multiparty Systems
SSRN Electronic Journal
2024
- 445Usage
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Measuring affective polarisation in multiparty systems leads to some controversies. In contrast to the American system, some authors argue that parties are not the real identity groups in Europe; instead, affective attitudes are better explained by the logic of ideological blocs. The most widespread formula so far for measuring affective polarisation in multiparty systems, proposed by Wagner (2021), underestimates interparty polarisation, and, although it is based on the inter-bloc polarisation approach, knowing whether that is actually being measured is mathematically hard. We propose a new measurement formula (DIPA) that, generating results generally similar to Wagner, allows us to solve two crucial problems: differentiating negative partisanship from affective polarisation; and capturing partisan hooliganism, a basic assumption of polarisation and a reflection of the minimum group paradigm. Moreover, this is possible while maintaining the ability to measure inter-bloc polarisation, which we recognise is relevant in multiparty systems, despite being strongly dependent on circumstantial elements.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know