This article investigates the prevalence of vertical affective polarisation in the multi-party and consociational context of Flanders (Belgium) and explores how politicians’ gender intersects with vertical affective polarisation. More specifically, we test whether gender dissimilarity (voter and politician being of opposite gender) and/or gender-based stereotyping (female and male politicians taking positions on issues they are stereotypically not associated with) temper or reinforce vertical affective polarisation. Our results, based on an online survey experiment conducted among a representative sample of the general population in Flanders (Belgium), show that respondents’ level of disagreement with politicians’ policy positions significantly influences their evaluation of politicians’ general likability and psychological traits. Contrary to our expectations, however, the relationship between ideological disagreement and vertical affective polarisation is not moderated by politicians’ gender. By delving into the relationship between vertical affective polarisation, disagreement and gender, this study provides valuable insights into the interplay between identity, disagreement and affective divide.

Both ideological polarisation and affective polarisation tend to increase turnout, but we know little about whether these mobilising effects also hold among an electorate characterised by a history of compulsory voting. In fact, theory suggests that the effects of polarisation might be suppressed in this context, for example, because compulsory voting stimulates a civic duty to vote among the electorate. To address this question, the authors focus on turnout decisions in the context of compulsory voting in Belgium, exploiting a question about hypothetical willingness to vote in future voluntary elections. The authors find that affective polarisation increases the likelihood to mobilise voters in the case where compulsory voting is replaced by voluntary voting. The effect of ideological polarisation on such decision is more contrasted. The authors discuss the implications of these findings, which are increasingly relevant considering the recent decision of the Flemish government to abolish compulsory voting at the local level.

Affective polarisation is increasingly viewed as a threat to democratic societies. However, the lack of consensus on measurement approaches hinders our understanding. This study assesses the concurrent validity of several affective polarisation measurements, challenging existing US-centric measurement approaches and advocating for a more nuanced understanding tailored to Europe’s diverse multiparty contexts. It leverages data from Belgium and the Netherlands (N = 2,174), two ideal-type multiparty systems to test various measurements of affective polarisation. Its novelty arrives from its examination of like-dislike and social distance measures in conjunction with social avoidance and out-group dislike. The findings reveal that while these measurements share common drivers, their outcomes differ substantially. Only out-group dislike and social distance are linked to decreased satisfaction with democracy, whereas affective polarisation as the difference between in- and out-group affect seems to stimulate voting intentions. Hence, this study cautions researchers against interchangeably using different measurements.

Research on affective polarisation is increasingly focused on conflict between broader political groups beyond party electorates. We add to this literature by exploring how affective polarisation is shaped by citizens’ construction of political group boundaries. Employing a qualitative approach, the study reanalyses focus group data collected between 2019 and 2021 in Belgium. The results reveal that citizens affirm the distinction between vertical and horizontal dimensions of polarisation, but also that political elites are considered without distinguishing along party lines. Second, horizontally, participants rarely mention party electorates, challenging the partisan focus of affective polarisation research. To better understand how affective polarisation takes shape, we zoom in on several socio-political groups that were salient throughout all focus groups. We examine the intersubjective negotiation of group boundaries and how they shape affective polarisation. In turn, we question the seemingly mechanistic nature of intergroup relations and highlight the affective weight group boundaries hold.