Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does ideological polarisation mobilise citizens?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Does an increasing divide in ideological orientations influence citizens’ political behaviour? This study explores whether mass ideological polarisation stimulates individuals to become politically active in terms of poll attendance and non-electoral participation. In line with relative deprivation theory I argue that in an environment of ideological polarisation, individuals’ normative notions are threatened, increasing the probability that they will actively participate in the political decision-making process. Using the European Social Survey (2002–2014) and focusing on subnational regions, I conduct macro-level as well as multi-level analyses. Empirical results show that ideological polarisation indeed mobilises for non-electoral participation, while there is no such effect on voting. In the second step, I examine whether ideological extremism makes individuals more susceptible to environmental ideological polarisation. Findings show that members of the far right are more likely to become politically active when their social environment is divided over political ideology. In contrast, members of the far left are hardly motivated by rising polarisation regarding ideology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: European Social Survey, 2002–2014 (www.europeansocialsurvey.org/. Accessed 15 Mar 2016)

Fig. 2

Source: European Social Survey, 2002–2014 (www.europeansocialsurvey.org/. Accessed 15 Mar 2016)

Fig. 3

Source: European Social Survey, 2002–2014 (www.europeansocialsurvey.org/. Accessed 15 Mar 2016)

Fig. 4

Source: European Social Survey, 2002–2014 (www.europeansocialsurvey.org/. Accessed 15 Mar 2016)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See inter alia Abramowitz and Saunders (2008), Baldassarri and Gelman (2008), DiMaggio et al. (1996), Fiorina et al. (2011), Evans (2003), Layman (2001), Layman and Carsey (2002), Fiorina and Levendusky (2006), Fiorina and Abrams (2011), Levendusky (2010) and Alwin and Tufiş (2016).

  2. See inter alia Abramowitz and Saunders (2005), Bafumi and Shapiro (2009), Baldassarri and Gelman (2008), Layman and Carsey (2002).

  3. See inter alia Baldassarri and Gelman (2008), Lachat (2008), Hetherington (2001), Fiorina and Levendusky (2006) and Levendusky (2010).

  4. Although mass polarisation has gained increasing scientific interest, there is no common definition (yet). The definition presented here, however, is convincing.

  5. Generally, ideological belief systems such as liberalism and conservatism are frameworks of interrelated beliefs, attitudes, and values that envision how the world should be by making assertions about human nature, historical events, present realities, and possible futures (Jost et al. 2009: 309, 315). They normatively specify good and proper ways of addressing life’s problems as well as means of attaining social, economic, and political ideals which helps to interpret the world, make judgements about political objects and justify actions (Jost et al. 2009: 310). Political orientations correlate with a variety of preferences, suggesting that respondents’ cognitive systems are ideologically structured (Jost et al. 2008: 129).

  6. Jost et al. (2008, 2009) argue that ideologies like conservatism (being right) and liberalism (being left) are usually founded in psychological needs and motives—such as handling uncertainty and threat—which makes certain ideas attractive to certain members of society. In turn, affinities between psychological needs and motives lend ideological content to a certain degree of constraint, coherence, and structure.

  7. The ESS is an academically driven cross-national survey that has been conducted across Europe every 2 years since 2002, investigating social structure, conditions, behaviour patterns and attitudes in Europe.

  8. NUTS (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics) is a geocode scheme developed by the European Union for statistical purposes. Subnational NUTS 2 units consist of not more than three million and not less than eighty thousand inhabitants.

  9. To check for robustness, another index was constructed where the three outermost extreme categories were used and the analyses rerun. All results remain stable.

  10. The index has already been introduced and discussed in detail in Kleiner (2016) and Kleiner (2018).

  11. Included are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.

References

  • Abramowitz, A.I., and K.L. Saunders. 2005. Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 3(2): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramowitz, A.I., and K.L. Saunders. 2008. Is Polarisation a Myth? The Journal of Politics 70(2): 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., J. Green, and C. Milazzo. 2012a. Has the British Public Depolarized Along With Political Elites? An American Perspective on British Public Opinion. Comparative Political Studies 45(4): 507–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., J. Green, and C. Milazzo. 2012b. Who Moves? Elite and Mass-Level Depolarisation in Britain, 1987–2001. Electoral Studies 31(4): 643–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G., and S. Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwin, D.F., and P.A. Tufiş. 2016. The Changing Dynamics of Class and Culture in American Politics: A Test of the Polarization Hypothesis. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 663(1): 229–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azmanova, A. 2011. After the Left–Right (Dis)continuum: Globalization and the Remaking of Europe’s Ideological Geography. International Political Sociology 5(4): 384–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bafumi, J., and R.Y. Shapiro. 2009. A New Partisan Voter. The Journal of Politics 71(1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassarri, D., and A. Gelman. 2008. Partisans Without Constraint: Political Polarisation and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology 114(2): 408–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., and M.J. Klasing. 2016. Diversity and Trust: The Role of Shared Values. Journal of Comparative Economics 44(3): 522–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., T. van Schaik, and W. Arts. 2006. Toward a unified Europe? Explaining Regional Differences in Value Patterns by Economic Development, Cultural Heritage and Historical Shocks. Regional Studies 40(3): 317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., P.E. Converse, W.E. Miller, and D.E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charron, N., and V. Lapuente. 2013. Why Do Some Regions in Europe Have a Higher Quality of Government? The Journal of Politics 75(3): 567–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R.J., and M.P. Wattenberg. 1993. The Not So Simple Act of Voting. In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. A.W. Finifter. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R.J. 2006. Social Modernization and the End of Ideological Debate: Patterns of Ideological Polarisation. Japanese Journal of Political Science 18(3): 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109905002045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., J. Evans, and B. Bryson. 1996. Have American’s Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 690–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domhoff, W. 2015. Who rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica.

  • Down, I., and C.J. Wilson. 2010. Opinion Polarisation and Inter-Party Competition on Europe. European Union Politics 11(61): 61–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65(2): 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, L., and S. Guimond. 1986. Relative Deprivation and Social Protest: The Personal Group Issue. In Relative Deprivation and Social Comparison, The Ontario Symposium, vol. 4, ed. C.P. Herman and M.P. Zanna. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, É. 2013. The Division of Labor in Society. Overland Park, KS: Digireads.com Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N. 2002. Social Identity and Relative Deprivation. In Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration, ed. I. Walker and H.J. Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J.H. 2003. Have Americans’ Attitudes Become More Polarized? An Update. Social Science Quarterly 84(1): 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., and J. Zaller. 1992. The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 268–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S.E., E.N. Muller, and K.-D. Opp. 1989. Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action. American Political Science Review 83(3): 855–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M.P., and S.J. Abrams. 2011. Where’s the Polarisation? In Controversies in Voting Behavior, ed. R.G. Niemi, H.F. Weisberg, and D.C. Kimball, 309–318. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M.P., S.J. Abrams, and J.C. Pope. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson-Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M.P., and M.S. Levendusky. 2006. Disconnected: The Political Class Versus the People. In Red and Blue Nation? Volume One: Characteristics and Causes of America’s Polarized Politics, ed. P.S. Nivola and D.W. Brady, 49–71. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, A. 2006. Bringing Social Identities Back In: The Social Anchors of Left–Right Orientation in Western Europe. International Political Science Review 27(4): 359–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, M.J. 2001. Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarisation. American Political Science Review 95(3): 619–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschle, J., and T.-M. Kleiner. 2014. Regional Cultures Attracting Interregional Migrants. Urban Studies 51(16): 3348–3364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J.D. 1994. Before the Shooting Begins. Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture War. New York: Maxwell Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., G. Sood, and Y. Lelkes. 2012. Affect, Not Ideology. A Social Identity Perspective on Polarisation. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., and S.J. Westwood. 2015. Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarisation. American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 690–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, W.G. 2014. Is There a Culture War? Conflicting Values Structures in American Public Opinion. American Political Science Review 108(4): 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C., and J.P.F. Thomsen. 2011. Can Party Competition Amplify Mass Ideological Polarisation Over Public Policy? The Case of Ethnic Exclusionism in Denmark and Sweden. Party Politics 19(5): 821–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J.T., B.A. Nosek, and S.D. Gosling. 2008. Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(2): 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J.T., C.M. Federico, and J.L. Napier. 2009. Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions and Elective Affnities. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 307–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J.T., Becker, J., Osborne, D. & Badaan, V. (2017). Missing in (Collective) Action. Current Directions in Psychological Science 26(2): 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaase, M. 1976. Political Ideology, Dissatisfaction and Protest: A Micro Theory of Unconventional Political Behavior. In German Political Systems. Theory and Practice in the Two Germanies, ed. K. von Beyme, M. Kaase, E. Krippendorff, V. Rittberger, and K.L. Shell. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kestilä-Kekkonen, E., and P. Söderlund. 2009. Rejoinder: Response to Arzheimer and Carter. European Journal of Political Research 48(3): 359–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, T.-M. 2016. Führt Polarisierung zu politischem Engagement? Swiss Political Science Review 22(3): 353–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, T.-M. 2018. Public Opinion Polarisation and Protest Behavior. European Journal of Political Research 57(4): 941–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachat, R. 2008. The Impact of Party Polarisation on Ideological Voting. Electoral Studies 27(4): 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G.C., and T.M. Carsey. 2002. Party Polarisation and “Conflict Extension” in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 786–802. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeper, T.J. 2014. The Informational Basis for Mass Polarisation. Public Opinion Quarterly 78(1): 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, M.S. 2010. Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarisation. Political Behavior 32(1): 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9094-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. 2007. Left–Right Orientations. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. R.J. Dalton and H.-D. Klingemann, 206–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. 2015. I Disrespectfully Agree: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarisation. American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 128–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrie, B., and D. Marsh. 2013. Beyond Mainstream Approaches to Political Participation. Australian Journal of Political Science 48(1): 112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K., and A. Kitt. 1950. Contribution to the Feelings of Reference Group Behavior. In Continuity in Social Research, ed. R.K. Merton and P.F. Lazarsfeld. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkov, M., and G. Hofstede. 2014. Clustering of 316 European Regions on Measures of Values: Do Europe’s Countries Have National Cultures? Cross-Cultural Research 48(3): 144–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C., and N. Neumeier. 2007. Über das Politische: Wider die kosmopolitische Illusion. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munzert, S., and P.C. Bauer. 2013. Political Depolarisation in German Public Opinion, 1980–2010. Political Science Research and Methods 1(1): 67–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novy, M. 2014. Electoral and Non-electoral Participation in the Vişegrad Countries. East European Politics and Societies 28(4): 863–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J.E. 2001. Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogowski, J.C. 2014. Electoral Choice, Ideological Conflict, and Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, W.G. 1966. ‘Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality’, in Twentieth Century England. Berkley: University of CA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H.J., and D.J. Ortiz. 2002. Is It Just Me? The Different Consequences of Personal and Group Relative Deprivation. In Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration, ed. I. Walker and H.J. Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, H., and A. Freire. 2012. Ideological Polarisation: Different Worlds in East and West. In Citizens and the European Polity: Mass Attitudes Towards the European and National Polities, ed. D. Sanders, P. Magalhães, and G. Tóka, 65–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, E., and C. Zuell. 2012. Item Non-response in Open-Ended Questions: Who Does Not Answer on the Meaning of Left and Right? Social Science Research 41(6): 1415–1428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M.C. 2002. Fraternal Deprivation, Collective Threat and Racial Resentment. In Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration, ed. I. Walker and H.J. Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer, T.W.G., J.W. van Deth, and P.L.H. Scheepers. 2009. The Politicized Participant. Comparative. Political Studies 42(11): 1426–1457.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zomeren, M., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2012. On Conviction’s Collective Consequences: Integrating Moral Conviction with the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. British Journal of Social Psychology 51(1): 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanneman, R.D., and T. Pettigrew. 1972. Race and Relative Deprivation in the Urban United States. Race 13(4): 461–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., K.L. Schlozman, and H.E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for providing quite valuable comments and suggestions to improve the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thünen Institute of Rural Studies, Bundesallee 64, 38116, Brunswick, Germany

    Tuuli-Marja Kleiner

Authors
  1. Tuuli-Marja Kleiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuuli-Marja Kleiner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Regional ideological polarisation and political participation (robustness check)
Full size table
Table 7 Regional ideological polarisation, extremism and voting (robustness check)
Full size table
Table 8 Ideological polarisation, extremism and non-electoral participation (robustness check)
Full size table
Table 9 Variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kleiner, TM. Does ideological polarisation mobilise citizens?. Eur Polit Sci 19, 573–602 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00228-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00228-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation