IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v51y2021i4p1476-1493_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divided by the Vote: Affective Polarization in the Wake of the Brexit Referendum

Author

Listed:
  • Hobolt, Sara B.
  • Leeper, Thomas J.
  • Tilley, James

Abstract

A well-functioning democracy requires a degree of mutual respect and a willingness to talk across political divides. Yet numerous studies have shown that many electorates are polarized along partisan lines, with animosity towards the partisan out-group. This article further develops the idea of affective polarization, not by partisanship, but instead by identification with opinion-based groups. Examining social identities formed during Britain's 2016 referendum on European Union membership, the study uses surveys and experiments to measure the intensity of partisan and Brexit-related affective polarization. The results show that Brexit identities are prevalent, felt to be personally important and cut across traditional party lines. These identities generate affective polarization as intense as that of partisanship in terms of stereotyping, prejudice and various evaluative biases, convincingly demonstrating that affective polarization can emerge from identities beyond partisanship.

Suggested Citation

  • Hobolt, Sara B. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Tilley, James, 2021. "Divided by the Vote: Affective Polarization in the Wake of the Brexit Referendum," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 1476-1493, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:51:y:2021:i:4:p:1476-1493_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123420000125/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Piotr Cichocki & Piotr Jabkowski, 2023. "Response scale overstretch: linear stretching of response scales does not ensure cross-project equivalence in harmonised data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3729-3745, August.
    2. Laia Balcells & Alexander Kuo, 2023. "Secessionist conflict and affective polarization: Evidence from Catalonia," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(4), pages 604-618, July.
    3. Beloborodova, Anna, 2023. "Love or politics? Political views regarding the war in Ukraine in an online dating experiment," MPRA Paper 118862, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Stephen Drinkwater & Colin Jennings, 2022. "The Brexit referendum and three types of regret," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 275-291, December.
    5. Kuang, Pei & Luca, Davide & Wei, Zhiwu & Yao, Yao, 2023. "Great or grim? Disagreement about Brexit, economic expectations and household spending," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119200, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Adam Ka-Lok Cheung & Lake Lui, 2024. "The Personal is Political: Political Attitudes, Affective Polarization and Fertility Preferences in Hong Kong," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(2), pages 1-23, April.
    7. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    8. Dominik Schraff & Ronja Sczepanski, 2022. "United or divided in diversity? The heterogeneous effects of ethnic diversity on European and national identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 236-258, June.
    9. Borbáth, Endre & Hutter, Swen & Leininger, Arndt, 2023. "Cleavage politics, polarisation and participation in Western Europe," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 631-651.
    10. Tom Lane, 2023. "The strategic use of social identity," Discussion Papers 2023-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:51:y:2021:i:4:p:1476-1493_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.