Comportement politique/sociologie

F02 - Political Polarizations I

Date: Jun 12 | Heure: 10:15am to 11:45am | Salle: 680 Sherbrooke St. West 451

Chair/Président/Présidente : Mathieu Turgeon (Western University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Fred Guillaume Dufour (Université du Québec à Montréal)

The Fearful Right and the Brave Left? About the Ideological Dimensions of Fear: Beáta Kovács (Eötvös Loránd University)
Abstract: The main goal of my research is to explore the right and left dimensions of the phenomenon of fear. I would like to argue that the categories of left and right continue to be defining aspects of political identities, and by mapping their emotional structure we can better understand the current relevance of these ideologies. By examining fears related to the refugee crisis and climate change, my research aims to show how political ideology works in our everyday lives and has an influence on our (political) decisions. The studies that have examined political fears have mostly linked fear to conservativism and right-wing populism, while the fears of the left have generated far less scientific interest. In addition most research has been conducted using quantitative methods in the American political context. Thus, my study aims to use qualitative methods to explore differences and similarities between the political fears of left-wingers and right-wingers in Hungary. In the course of the research so far seventy semi-structured creative interviews have been conducted with political activists. The interview questions were combined with projective techniques and the activists belonged to political parties which were members of the Hungarian Parliament. The preliminary findings of my research show that regarding migration and climate change extreme ideological positions were rarely found among the respondents. However, political polarization is one of the most important fears perceived by the interviewees in Hungary today. The results of my research also confirmed that Hungarian society is by no means polarized “by itself”, but the polarization process is mainly the creation of the political elites, who intensify naturally existing opinion differences to create a battle between good and evil.

(Mis)information Flows and Public Beliefs about Voter Fraud in the 2020 and 2022 U.S. Elections: Mathieu Lavigne (Dartmouth College), John Carey (Dartmouth College), Brian Fogarty (University of Notre Dame), Marília Gehrke (University of Groningen)
Abstract: Trust in the electoral process is key to a healthy democracy and has recently come into question. How do citizens update their beliefs about voter fraud in a highly politicized context like the aftermath of the 2020 U.S. presidential election? Using paired over-time panel survey data and behavioral web browsing data, we first examine how citizens’ partisanship and consumption of mainstream and untrustworthy news sites influenced their exposure to voter fraud news and refutation of fraud claims during and between the 2020 and 2022 U.S. election periods. We then evaluate the correspondence between information flows and public beliefs. We uncover significant differences in the likelihood of updating one’s perceptions of election integrity in the post-election period and between the two elections based on exposure to cues from elites. Finally, we report results from a survey experiment conducted after the 2020 election that shows that corrections debunking claims of widespread voter fraud can be effective at reducing misperceptions. However, our data show that exposure to corrections was relatively rare, especially among those believing in voter fraud. The results highlight the critical role played by elites in shaping perceptions of elections and the necessity of increasing demand for fact-checking among those most likely to consume misinformation.

Misinformation, Polarization, and Trust in Elections: Longitudinal Evidence from Canada: Mathieu Lavigne (Dartmouth College), Aengus Bridgman (McGill University), Holly Ann Garnett (Royal Military College of Canada)
Abstract: Emerging literature suggests that rising affective polarization can amplify the winner-loser gap in perceptions of elections and political support. Indeed, affective polarization increases the perceived stakes of elections and citizens’ vulnerability to ideologically-aligned rhetoric about election administration. Using data from the Canadian Election Study from 2008 to 2021 and the Media Ecosystem Observatory from 2019 to 2021, we show that perceptions of election administration, which are measured in terms of confidence, satisfaction, and perceived fairness, have not become more negative over time, but are more strongly influenced by citizens’ political orientations since 2019. We then evaluate three potential causes for these partisan and ideological differences in perceptions of elections: (1) affective polarization, (2) the fact that the party that won the popular vote did not form the government in 2019 and 2021, and (3) beliefs in election misinformation (primarily based on elite rhetoric during the 2020 U.S. election). The findings help understand the evolution of citizens’ perceptions of elections in Canada, which have important implications for the health of our democracy.

Polarizing Political Participation: How Major American Political Organizations Mobilize their Members Across the Right and Left: Catharina O'Donnell (Harvard University)
Abstract: National political organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association play an important role in contemporary American politics. Historically, political organizations offered their members opportunities for political and civic engagement, but some scholars suggest that this function has declined as political organizations have professionalized and institutionalized. To interrogate the contemporary relationship between political organizations and their membership bases across the right and left, I computationally analyze 13,459 mass emails sent by 29 major American political organizations to their member mailing lists between 2018 and 2022. I find that these organizations continually encourage their bases to engage in concrete action. However, the specific kind of action encouraged is shaped by political divides. Left-leaning organizations assign readers urgent tasks focused on immediate political objectives that largely take for granted the reader’s ideological commitment (e.g. contact your representative). Meanwhile, right-leaning organizations encourage actions that build collective identity and commitment to the movement (e.g. listen to our podcast). My findings suggest that contemporary national political organizations do present their members with some opportunities for political participation, but the nature of these opportunities is structured by the right-left political divide.