Perceptions of polarization among political representatives

Figures & data

Figure 1. Postulated relationships between partisanship, trust, perceptions of polarization and antagonistic behaviour in political work.

Note: The winner-loser partisan effect on trust (in grey) is controlled for in the analysis, but is not the main focus for this study.

Table 1. Perceived political polarization and antagonistic behaviour. Multilevel regression analysis – varying intercept only model.

	Perceived polarization	Perceived antagonistic behaviour
Fixed part:
Intercept	5.60***	4.33***
Random part:
Municipality-level variance	0.56***	1.52***
Individual-level variance	6.90***	5.83***
Intraclass correlation (ICC)	.075	.207
Number of municipalities	290	290
Number of individuals	8,913	8,948
Bayesian Information Criterion	42,890	41,831
	***p < .001

Table 2. The variables of the analyses, descriptive information (mean, standard deviation and number of cases) and correlation (Pearson’s r) with dependent variables.

	Statistics			Correlation with dependent variables (Pearson’s r)
	Mean	SD	N	Perceived polarization	Perceived anta­gonistic behaviour
Dependent variables
Perceived polarization	5.66	2.73	8.913	–	+.22***
Perceived antagonistic behaviour	4.38	2.71	8.948	+.22***	–
Main independent variables (individual level)
Formal rank index (continuous) Mayor = 1, Back bencher = 0	.48	.28	9.725	−.04**	−.13***
Parliamentary position (categorical) Majority = 1, Opposition = 0	.54	.50	9.725	−.12***	−.29***
General democratic satisfaction (continuous) High = 1, Low = 0	.57	.18	9.203	−.02*	−.25***
Interpersonal trust (continuous) High = 1, Low = 0	.75	.18	9.257	+.02*	−.08***
Perceived responsiveness of governing majority (continuous) High = 1, Low = 0	.54	.27	8.867	−.08***	−.36***
Trust in Local Executive board (continuous) High = 1, Low = 0	.66	.26	8.926	−.09***	−.41***
Control variables
Socialist (categorical) Socialist party = 1, non-socialist = 0	.42	.49	9.725	+.12***	−.00
Sweden democrat = 1, Other = 0 (categorical)	.03	.18	9.724	−.02*	+.06**
Local party = 1, Other = 0 (categorical)	.04	.19	9.724	–.00	+.10***
Education (categorical) High = 1, Low = 0	.52	.50	9.680	−.02	+.03**
Gender (categorical) Woman = 1, Man = 0	.43	.49	9.724	+.07***	−.00
Age (continuous) Oldest = 1, Youngest = 0	.49	.18	9.724	−.05***	−.06***

Note: The statistics of the main variables of the analyses are presented in the table, along with the correlation between independent and dependent variables. The statistics of control variables at the municipal level are presented in a table in the Appendix (Supplementary material).

Table 3. Correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) among independent variables.

	A	B	C	D	E	F
A Formal rank index: Mayor = 1	–
B Parliamentary position: Majority = 1	+.19***	–
C Gen. democratic satisfaction: High = 1	+.19***	+.26***	–
D Interpersonal trust: High = 1	+.13***	+.07***	+.22***	–
E Perc. responsiveness of maj.: High = 1	+.19***	+.64***	+.36***	+.13***	–
F Trust in Executive board: High = 1	+.26***	+.49***	+.45***	+.16***	+.62***	–
Socialist: Socialist party = 1	+.05***	+.05***	n.s	+.11***	+.04**	+.04***
Sweden democrat = 1	−.18***	−.20***	−.25***	−.21***	−.14***	−.14***
Local party:  = 1	−.09***	−.14***	−.16***	−.10***	−.16***	−.14***
Education: High = 1	+.02*	n.s.	+.03**	+.08***	n.s.	−.02*
Gender: Woman = 1	−.04***	+.03**	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.	+.03**
Age: Oldest = 1	+.05***	n.s.	+.03*	n.s.	n.s.	+.03**

Note: Correlation values >+/− .20 are marked with bold letters. N.s.: not significant. P-values: ***<.001; **<.01; *<.05.

Table 4. Factors explaining local councillors’ perception of polarization and antagonistic behaviour in their own municipality (multilevel regression analysis. two levels. estimates of fixed effects, SE in parenthesis).

Dependent variable:	Perceived polarization		Perceived antagonistic behaviour
Fixed part:	Model 1	Model 2	Model3	Model 4	Model 5
Main independent variables
Formal rank scale: Mayor = 1	−.17 (.10)	−.16 (.11)	−.49*** (.09)	−.19* (.09)	−.16 (.09)
Parliamentary position: Majority = 1	−.71*** (.06)	−.69*** (.09)	−1.24*** (.06)	−.42*** (.06)	−.34*** (.06)
Gen. democratic satisfaction: High = 1	−.05 (.18)	+.22 (.19)	−2.62*** (.15)	+1.21*** (.16)	+1.24*** (.16)
Interpersonal trust: High = 1	−.02 (.17)	−.00 (.17)	−.48** (.15)	−.23 (.25)	−.23 (.14)
Perc. responsiveness of maj.: High = 1	n.i.	+.09 (.15)	n.i.	−1.19*** (.13)	−1.20*** (.13)
Trust in Executive board: High = 1	n.i.	−.27 (.15)	n.i.	−2.22*** (.13)	−2.19*** (.13)
Perceived polarization: High = 1	n.i.	n.i.	n.i.	n.i.	+1.09*** (.09)
Control variables
Socialist ideology: Socialist party = 1	+.61*** (.06)	+.61*** (.06)	+.12* (.05)	+.13* (.05)	+.07 (.05)
Sweden democrat = 1	−.50** (.18)	−.46** (.17)	−.72*** (.16)	−52*** (.15)	−46** (.15)
Local party: =1	−.05 (.16)	−.02 (.16)	+.20 (.14)	+.13 (.13)	+.12 (.13)
Education: High=1	−.22*** (.06)	−.24*** (.06)	+.06 (.05)	+.01 (.05)	+.04 (.05)
Gender: Woman=1	+.33*** (.06)	+.36*** (.06)	−.05 (.05)	−.01 (.05)	−.05 (.06)
Age: Oldest=1	−.60*** (.16)	−.60*** (.17)	−.66*** (.25)	−.55*** (.14)	−.47** (.14)
Intercept	1.30 (1.89)	3.92* (1.94)	1.26 (2.79)	9.30*** (2.51)	7.80*** (2.20)
Random part:
Individual-level variance [per cent variance explained]	6.62 [4.1]	6.59 [4.5]	4.98 [14.6]	4.66 [20.1]	4.58 [21.4]
Intraclass correlation (ICC)	.05	.04	.18	.14	.11
Number of Municipalities	290	290	290	290	290
Number of Individuals	8,796	8,626	8,835	8,635	8,592
Bayesian Information Criterion	42182	41354	40170	38659	38269

Note: Effects of control variables on the municipal level such as political and demographic characteristics of the locality as well as aggregated effects of individual variables (e.g. share of women in the council, etc.), are omitted from this table The complete table is presented in the Appendix (Supplementary material). All variance estimates are significant on the .001-level. N.i.: Not included. P-values: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Results on the relationship between partisanship, trust, perceived polarization and antagonistic behaviour.

Note: The winner-loser partisan effect on trust (in grey) is controlled for, and confirmed, in a control analysis not presented in this paper.