publications

2025

1. working paper

   Perceived (Mis)Understanding as a Driver of Affective Polarization and Avoidance Behavior

   Alexander Dalheimer and Markus Wagner

   2025

   Abs Bib

   Prior research identifies partisan meta-perceptions as a potential source of partisan animosity. Building on this work, we introduce a concept extending beyond perceived like and dislike: perceived understanding. Perceived understanding refers to how well out-partisans are perceived to understand in-party voters’ values, motives and intentions, and way of life. We expect the more people perceive their co-partisans to be misunderstood by out-party supporters, the more they will be affectively polarized, hostile, and avoidant toward out-partisans. This paper uses two data sources. First, original cross-sectional survey data from 11 countries is used to examine the prevalence of perceived (mis)understanding and its correlation with key outcomes. Second, an experimental cognitive interview study in the US explores respondents’ top-of-the-head considerations when answering key survey questions to asses the distinctiveness of perceived understanding and meta-perceptions. A future version of this paper will additionally include an experiment that assesses the causal effect of perceived (mis)understanding on affective evaluations and action tendencies. The results indicate strong associations between perceived (mis)understanding, affective polarization, and avoidance tendency. Moreover, evidence is provided that perceived understanding and meta-perceptions are not only conceptually but also empirically distinct. This project contributes to ongoing research on partisan conflict by highlighting the role of perceived (mis)understanding in shaping inter-group dynamics. The findings inform targeted countermeasures to mitigate affective polarization and prevent further escalation of partisan animosity.

   @article{Understanding,
     title = {Perceived (Mis)Understanding as a Driver of Affective Polarization and Avoidance Behavior},
     author = {Dalheimer, Alexander and Wagner, Markus},
     journal = {},
     volume = {},
     number = {},
     pages = {},
     year = {2025},
     publisher = {}
   }

2. working paper

   When the Radical Right Enters Parliament: Impacts on Affective Polarization

   Alexander Dalheimer

   2025

   Abs Bib

   Does the entry of a populist radical-right (PRR) party into parliament influence affective polarization? While prior research suggests that the institutional presence of PRR parties can drive ideological polarization and voter radicalization (Bischof and Wagner, 2019), their impact on the affective dynamics between voters of different parties remains underexplored. This article addresses that gap by theorizing how parliamentary entry may reshape partisan affect through mechanisms of legitimization, perceived threat, and cross-party unity. Distinguishing between supporters and non-supporters of the PRR, the study provides a nuanced account of how affective polarization evolves in response to electoral success. Two complementary studies – a quasi-experimental analysis of monthly cross-sectional time-series data and a panel study examining within-individual change – enable causal inference. The results show that, in the short term, parliamentary entry intensifies animosity among non-radial right voters toward the radical right, fosters affective solidarity among non-radical right partisans, and leads to a temporary increase in sympathy from radical right voters toward other parties. All in all, the findings demonstrate that the success of radical right parties is a consequential driver of affective polarization in multiparty systems.

   @article{AfD,
     title = {When the Radical Right Enters Parliament: Impacts on Affective Polarization},
     author = {Dalheimer, Alexander},
     journal = {},
     volume = {},
     number = {},
     pages = {},
     year = {2025},
     publisher = {}
   }

3. working paper

   Sources of Ideological Images of Opposing Party Supporters across 13 Countries

   Semih Cakir, Alexander Dalheimer, Markus Wagner, and 1 more author

   2025

   Abs Bib

   In a polarized political landscape, how do individuals form images of opposing party supporters, and how accurate are these perceptions? In this study, we investigate the factors influencing individuals’ perceptions of the ideological extremity and homogeneity of their political out-group. This is important because ideological (mis)perceptions of out-party supporters can serve as a strong catalyst for hostility towards these groups. We explore two sources that citizens may use to form perceptions of out-partisans. As a ’vertical’ source, we expect individuals to use party elites’ extremity and homogeneity as cues and project these onto the parties’ supporters. As a ’horizontal’ source, we expect individuals to also consider the actual ideological extremity and homogeneity of opposing party supporters, which they might be aware of indirectly (through media or other mechanisms) or directly (through their own network). In addition, we expect that the diversity of political options available in a person’s personal social network will moderate which cues they will rely on. We test our expectations about the sources of these perceptions, as well as how they steer citizens towards an (in)accurate understanding, using survey data from 13 democracies. We use novel items about the perceived ideological homogeneity and extremity of political outgroups, as well as information on respondents’ own social network. By analyzing the interplay between vertical and horizontal cues in shaping (mis)perceptions, this research contributes to understanding of how political groups form mental images of each other, which in turn sheds light on the foundations of hostility between political camps.

   @article{horizontal,
     title = {Sources of Ideological Images of Opposing Party Supporters across 13 Countries},
     author = {Cakir, Semih and Dalheimer, Alexander and Wagner, Markus and Harteveld, Eelco},
     journal = {},
     volume = {},
     number = {},
     pages = {},
     year = {2025},
     publisher = {}
   }

4. working paper

   Inparty Moralization and Political Intolerance

   Isabella Rebasso, Alexander Dalheimer, and Markus Wagner

   2025

   Abs Bib

   Scholars increasingly argue that partisan dislike and political sectarianism are rooted in moralized beliefs that one’s own side is good and morally superior, while the opposing side is corrupt and should be shunned. This paper advances this perspective by combining perspectives on affective polarization and work in psychology on the relationship between ingroup moralization and outgroup intolerance. We argue that inparty moralization, the tendency to ascribe positive moral qualities to one’s own group, buffers against political intolerance but fuels political intolerance when paired with negative outparty moralization. We test this idea using open-ended partisan stereotype questions in surveys from seven countries (N = 14 000) with varying levels of partisan division. To measure moralization, we use a large language model (OLLAMA) classifying positive and negative moral judgments in respondents’ partisan stereotypes and test their distinct effects on partisan affect, social distance, and political intolerance. While most research on affective polarization focuses on negative judgments of outpartisans, we shift the focus to the positive moralization of inpartisans as an overlooked but crucial driver of political intolerance. We argue that while negative moral judgments sustain dislike for outgroups, the willingness to support political intolerance and undermine democratic norms is enabled by strong beliefs in the moral superiority of one’s own side.

   @article{OpenStereotypes,
     title = {Inparty Moralization and Political Intolerance},
     author = {Rebasso, Isabella and Dalheimer, Alexander and Wagner, Markus},
     journal = {},
     volume = {},
     number = {},
     pages = {},
     year = {2025},
     publisher = {}
   }