
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3933702
In this letter we argue that negative partisanship and affective polarization are intertwined yet distinct concepts: the first refers to identity, and the second refers to attitudes. Ignoring this distinction poses two problems at the empirical level – one of validity and one of analysis – because negative partisanship is a likely determinant for affective polarization which is often excluded from analyses, thus leading to an overestimation of the effect of positive party identification. However, current operationalization does not allow separate measurements. This depends partly on the under-conceptualization and the consequent imprecise measurement of negative partisanship. We discuss appropriate measures to use in future analyses.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
