Mainstream partisans’ affective response to (non) cooperation with populist radical right parties

References

• Adams, James, Lawrence Ezrow, and Christopher Wlezien (2016). ‘The Company You Keep: How Voters Infer Party Positions on European Integration from Governing Coalition Arrangements’, American Journal of Political Science, 60:4, 811–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akkerman, Tjitske, and Matthijs Rooduijn (2015). ‘Pariahs or Partners? Inclusion and Exclusion of Radical Right Parties and the Effects on Their Policy Positions’, Political Studies, 63:5, 1140–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Art, David (2007). ‘Reacting to the Radical Right: Lessons from Germany and Austria’, Party Politics, 13:3, 331–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bale, Tim, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, André Krouwel, Kurt R. Luther, and Nick Sitter (2010). ‘If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them? Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge from the Populist Radical Right in Western Europe’, Political Studies, 58:3, 410–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banda, Kevin K., and John Cluverius (2018). ‘Elite Polarization, Party Extremity, and Affective Polarization’, Electoral Studies, 56, 90–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bankert, Alexa (2021). ‘Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 US Presidential Elections’, Political Behavior, 43:4, 1467–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassan-Nygate, Lotem, and Chagai M. Weiss (2022). ‘Party Competition and Cooperation Shape Affective Polarization: Evidence from Natural and Survey Experiments in Israel’, Comparative Political Studies, 55:2, 287–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blinder, Scott, Robert Ford, and Elisabeth Ivarsflaten (2013). ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: How the Antiprejudice Norm Affects Policy and Party Preferences in Great Britain and Germany’, American Journal of Political Science, 57:4, 841–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, and Stephen P. Nicholson (2018). ‘Information Cues and Rational Ignorance’, in Roger D. Congleton, Bernard Grofman, and Stefan Voigt (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 381–95.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, Marilynn B. (1999). ‘The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?’, Journal of Social Issues, 55:3, 429–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlin, Ryan E., and Gregory J. Love (2018). ‘Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 48:1, 115–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caruana, Nicholas J., Michael R. McGregor, and Laura B. Stephenson (2015). ‘The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 48:4, 771–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christ, Oliver, and Mathias Kauff (2019). ‘Intergroup Contact Theory’, in Kai Sassenberg and Michael L. W. Vliek (eds.), Social Psychology in Action. Cham: Springer, 145–61.
   Google Scholar
• Coffé, Hilde (2008). ‘Social Democratic Parties as Buffers against the Extreme Right: The Case of Belgium’, Contemporary Politics, 14:2, 179–95.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Geoffrey L. (2003). ‘Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85:5, 808–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, Stephan, Jonas Linde, and Sören Holmberg (2015). ‘Democratic Discontent in Old and New Democracies: Assessing the Importance of Democratic Input and Governmental Output’, Political Studies, 63:1_suppl, 18–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vries, Catherine E., and Sara B. Hobolt (2012). ‘When Dimensions Collide: The Electoral Success of Issue Entrepreneurs’, European Union Politics, 13:2, 246–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias, Nicholas, and Yphtach Lelkes (2021). ‘The Nature of Affective Polarization: Disentangling Policy Disagreement from Partisan Identity’, American Journal of Political Science, 66:3, 775–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinas, Elias, Pedro Riera, and Nasos Roussias (2015). ‘Staying in the First League: Parliamentary Representation and the Electoral Success of Small Parties’, Political Science Research and Methods, 3:2, 187–204.
   Google Scholar
• Döring, Holger, and Manow Philip (2019). Data From: Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections, and Cabinets in Modern Democracies. Retrieved from http://www.parlgov.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Down, Ian, and Han J. Kyung (2020). ‘Marginalisation or Legitimation? Mainstream Party Positioning on Immigration and Support for Radical Right Parties’, West European Politics, 43:7, 1388–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, William M. (2002). ‘How Effective is the Cordon Sanitaire? Lessons from Efforts to Contain the Far Right in Belgium, France, Denmark and Norway’, Journal für Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung, 8:1, 32–51.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, William M. (2012). Political Extremism in Democracies: Combating Intolerance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Dunwoody, Philip T., and Plane L. Dennis (2019). ‘The Influence of Authoritarianism and Outgroup Threat on Political Affiliations and Support for Antidemocratic Policies’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25:3, 198–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, Susan T., J. Amy Cuddy, and Peter Glick (2007). ‘Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11:2, 77–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortunato, David, and James Adams (2015). ‘How Voters’ Perceptions of Junior Coalition Partners Depend on the Prime Minister’s Position’, European Journal of Political Research, 54:3, 601–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortunato, David, Nick C. N. Lin, Randolph T. Stevenson, and Mathias Wessel Tromborg (2021). ‘Attributing Policy Influence under Coalition Governance’, American Political Science Review, 115:1, 252–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortunato, David, and Randolph T. Stevenson (2013). ‘Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The Effect of Coalition Participation’, American Journal of Political Science, 57:2, 459–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaertner, Samuel L., John F. Dovidio, Mary C. Rust, Jason A. Nier, Brenda S. Banker, Christine M. Ward, Gary R. Mottola, and Missy Houlette (1999). ‘Reducing Intergroup Bias: Elements of Intergroup Cooperation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76:3, 388–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Michael (2005). ‘Conclusion’, in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 535–78.
   Google Scholar
• Gidron, Noam, James Adams, and Will Horne (2018). ‘How Ideology’, Economics and Institutions Shape Affective Polarization in Democratic Polities’. APSA Annual Conference, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Gidron, Noam, James Adams, and Will Horne (2019). ‘Who Dislikes Whom? The Drivers of Affective Polarization in Multi-Party Systems’, APSA Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, Erving (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Grabow, Karsten, and Florian Hartleb (2013a). ‘Europa – Nein Danke? Studie zum Aufstieg rechts- und nationalpopulistischer Parteien in Europa’, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 11, 5–52.
   Google Scholar
• Grabow, Karsten, and Florian Hartleb (2013b). ‘Mapping Present-Day Right-Wing Populists’, in Karsten Grabow and Florian Hartleb (eds.), Exposing the Demagogues: Right-Wing and National Populist Parties in Europe. Brussels: Centre for European Studies, 13–44.
   Google Scholar
• Guedes-Neto, João V. (2022). ‘The Effects of Political Attitudes on Affective Polarization: Survey Evidence from 165 Elections’, Political Studies Review, 21:2, 238–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, Kyung J. (2020). ‘Reacting to Isolation: How the Political Exclusion of Extreme Right-Wing Parties Changes the Party Support’, Representation, 56:1, 71–87.
   Google Scholar
• Harteveld, Eelco (2021). ‘Fragmented Foes: Affective Polarization in the Multiparty Context of The Netherlands’, Electoral Studies, 71, 102332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harteveld, Eelco, Stefan Dahlberg, Andrej Kokkonen, and Wouter van der Brug (2019a). ‘Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics’, British Journal of Political Science, 49:3, 1141–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harteveld, Eelco, Stefan Dahlberg, Andrej Kokkonen, and Wouter van der Brug (2019b). ‘Social Stigma and Support for the Populist Radical Right: An Experimental Study’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 42:3-4, 296–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harteveld, Eelco, Andrej Kokkonen, Jonas Linde, and Stefan Dahlberg (2021). ‘A Tough Trade-Off? The Asymmetrical Impact of Populist Radical Right Inclusion on Satisfaction with Democracy and Government’, European Political Science Review, 13:1, 113–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harteveld, Eelco, Philipp Mendoza, and Matthijs Rooduijn (2022). ‘Affective Polarization and the Populist Radical Right: Creating the Hating?’, Government and Opposition, 57:4, 703–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinze, Anna-Sophie (2018). ‘Strategies of Mainstream Parties towards their Right-Wing Populist Challengers: Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland in Comparison’, West European Politics, 41:2, 287–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helbling, Marc, and Sebastian Jungkunz (2020). ‘Social Divides in the Age of Globalization’, West European Politics, 43:6, 1187–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández, Enrique, Eva Anduiza, and Guillem Rico (2021). ‘Affective Polarization and the Salience of Elections’, Electoral Studies, 69, 102203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjermitslev, Ida B. (2020). ‘Perceptions of Partnership: Three Essays on Coalition Formation and Ideological Information Processing’, doctoral dissertation., Duke University.
   Google Scholar
• Hjorth, Frederik (2020). ‘Establishment Responses to Populist Radical Right Challenges: The Politics of Moral Distancing’, Unpublished Paper, University of Copenhagen,
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, Sara B. (2006). ‘How Parties Affect Vote Choice in European Integration Referendums’, Party Politics, 12:5, 623–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg, Michael A. (2001). ‘A Social Identity Theory of Leadership’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5:3, 184–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg, Michael A., and Daan van Knippenberg (2003). ‘Social Identity and Leadership Processes in Groups’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hox, Joop J., Mirjam Moerbeek, and Rens van de Schoot (2017). Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Huddy, Leonie, and Alexa Bankert (2017). ‘Political Partisanship as a Social Identity’, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Available at https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-250 (accessed 9 March 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Huddy, Leonie, Alexa Bankert, and Caitlin Davies (2018). ‘Expressive versus Instrumental Partisanship in Multiparty European Systems’, Political Psychology, 39:S1, 173–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe (2015). ‘Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity’, American Political Science Review, 109:1, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huddy, Leonie, and Omer Yair (2021). ‘Reducing Affective Polarization: Warm Group Relations or Policy Compromise?’, Political Psychology, 42:2, 291–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes (2012). ‘Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 76:3, 405–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Shanto, and Sean J. Westwood (2015). ‘Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization’, American Journal of Political Science, 59:3, 690–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkland, Patricia A., and Alexander Coppock (2018). ‘Candidate Choice without Party Labels’, Political Behavior, 40:3, 571–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, Herbert (2018). ‘Party Systems and Radical Right-Wing Parties’, in Jens Rydgren (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 166–99.
   Google Scholar
• Knoef, Marike, and Klaas de Vos (2009). The Representativeness of LISS, an Online Probability Panel. Tilburg: Institute for Data Collection and Research, Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-representativeness-of-LISS%2C-an-online-panel-Knoef-Vos/5bc1598aedeef4190d8ac83ed224d79ab9cda148 (accessed 15 April 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Knudsen, Erik (2020). ‘Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems? Comparing Affective Polarization Towards Voters and Parties in Norway and the United States’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 44:1, 34–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopmans, Ruud, and Jasper Muis (2009). ‘The Rise of Right-Wing Populist Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands: A Discursive Opportunity Approach’, European Journal of Political Research, 48:5, 642–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lelkes, Yphtach, Gaurav Sood, and Shanto Iyengar (2017). ‘The Hostile Audience: The Effect of Access to Broadband Internet on Partisan Affect’, American Journal of Political Science, 61:1, 5–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz, Gabriel S. (2012). Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levendusky, Matthew S. (2013). ‘Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?’, American Journal of Political Science, 57:3, 611–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linde, Jonas, and Yvette Peters (2020). ‘Responsiveness, Support, and Responsibility: How Democratic Responsiveness Facilitates Responsible Government’, Party Politics, 26:3, 291–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggiotto, Michael A., and E. James Piereson (1977). ‘Partisan Identification and Electoral Choice: The Hostility Hypothesis’, American Journal of Political Science, 21:4, 745–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, Lanny W., and Georg Vanberg (2008). ‘Coalition Government and Political Communication’, Political Research Quarterly, 61:3, 502–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, Sabrina J., and Luana Russo (2024). ‘What One is Not: A New Scale to Measure Negative Party Identity in Multi-Party Systems’, Quality & Quantity, 58, 2887–906.
   Google Scholar
• Medeiros, Mike, and Alain Noël (2014). ‘The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo-American Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 47:7, 1022–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meguid, Bonnie M. (2005). ‘Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success’, American Political Science Review, 99:3, 347–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meléndez, Carlos, and Cristóbal R. Kaltwasser (2021). ‘Negative Partisanship towards the Populist Radical Right and Democratic Resilience in Western Europe’, Democratization, 28:5, 949–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffitt, Benjamin (2021). ‘How Do Mainstream Parties ‘Become’ Mainstream, and Pariah Parties ‘Become’ Pariahs? Conceptualizing the Processes of Mainstreaming and Pariahing in the Labelling of Political Parties’, Government and Opposition, 57:3, 385–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, Cas (2004). ‘The Populist Zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition, 39:4, 541–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, Cas (2016). ‘Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe Today’, in John Abromeit, York Norman, Gary Marotta, and Bridget C. María (eds.), Transformations of Populism in Europe and the Americas: History and Recent Tendencies. London: Bloomsbury Collection, 295–307.
   Google Scholar
• Mudde, Cas, and Cristobal R. Kaltwasser (2018). ‘Studying Populism in Comparative Perspective: Reflections on the Contemporary and Future Research Agenda’, Comparative Political Studies, 51:13, 1667–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, Wolfgang C., and Kaare Strøm (eds.) (2003). Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pop-Eleches, Grigore (2010). ‘Throwing out the Bums: Protest Voting and Unorthodox Parties after Communism’, World Politics, 62:2, 221–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popkin, Samuel L. (1995). ‘Information Shortcuts and the Reasoning Voter’, in Bernard Grofman (ed.), Information, Participation and Choice: An Economic Theory of Democracy in Perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 17–35.
   Google Scholar
• Reif, Karlheinz, and Hermann Schmitt (1980). ‘Nine Second-Order National Elections – a Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research, 8:1, 3–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiljan, Andres (2020). ‘Fear and Loathing across Party Lines (Also) in Europe: Affective Polarisation in European Party Systems’, European Journal of Political Research, 59:2, 376–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiljan, Andres, and Alexander Ryan (2021). ‘Ideological Tripolarization, Partisan Tribalism and Institutional Trust: The Foundations of Affective Polarization in the Swedish Multiparty System’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 44:2, 195–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renström, Emma A., Hanna Bäck, and Royce Carroll (2021). ‘Intergroup Threat and Affective Polarization in a Multi-Party System’, Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9:2, 553–76.
   Google Scholar
• Riera, Pedro, and A. Garmendia Madariaga (2023). ‘Overlapping Polarization: On the Contextual Determinants of the Interplay between Ideological and Affective Polarization’, Electoral Studies, 84, 102628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridge, Hanna M. (2020). ‘Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy’, Political Behavior, 44:3, 1271–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogowski, Jon C., and Joseph L. Sutherland (2016). ‘How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization’, Political Behavior, 38:2, 485–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooduijn, Matthijs, et al. (2023). Dataset from: The PopuList 3.0: An Overview of Populist, Far-left and Far-right Parties in Europe. Retrieved from www.popu-list.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rooduijn, Matthijs, Wouter van der Brug, and Sarah L. de Lange (2016). ‘Expressing or Fuelling Discontent? The Relationship between Populist Voting and Populist Discontent’, Electoral Studies, 43, 32–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydgren, Jens (2004). ‘Explaining the Emergence of Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties: The Case of Denmark’, West European Politics, 27:3, 474–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, Gijs, and Kees van Kersbergen (2016). ‘Do Mainstream Parties Adapt to the Welfare Chauvinism of Populist Parties?’, Party Politics, 22:3, 300–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seawright, Jason, and John Gerring (2008). ‘Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options’, Political Research Quarterly, 61:2, 294–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheffer, Lior (2020). ‘Partisan In-Group Bias before and after Elections’, Electoral Studies, 67, 102191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, Shane P., and R. Judd Thornton (2016). ‘Strange Bedfellows: Coalition Makeup and Perceptions of Democratic Performance among Electoral Winners’, Electoral Studies, 42, 114–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Heike Klüver (2015). ‘Voter Polarisation and Party Responsiveness: Why Parties Emphasise Divided Issues, but Remain Silent on Unified Issues’, European Journal of Political Research, 54:2, 343–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, Margit Tavits, and Markus Baumann (2020). ‘Does Party Rhetoric Affect Voter Perceptions of Party Positions?’, Electoral Studies, 65, 102153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sood, Gaurav, and Iyengar Shanto (2016). ‘Coming to Dislike Your Opponents: The Polarizing Impact of Political Campaigns’, SSRN, 2840225, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, Marco R., Erica Edwards, and Catherine Vries (2007). ‘Who’s Cueing Whom? Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration’, European Union Politics, 8:1, 13–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, Marco R., and Bradford S. Jones (2002). ‘Modeling Multilevel Data Structures’, American Journal of Political Science, 46:1, 218–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strömbäck, Jesper, and Adam Shehata (2010). ‘Media Malaise or a Virtuous Circle? Exploring the Causal Relationships between News Media Exposure, Political News Attention and Political Interest’, European Journal of Political Research, 49:5, 575–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhay, Elizabeth, Emily Bello-Pardo, and Brianna Maurer (2018). ‘The Polarizing Effects of Online Partisan Criticism: Evidence from Two Experiments’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23:1, 95–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol, Mohsen, and Reg Dennick (2011). ‘Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha’, International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tavits, Margit (2008). ‘Party Systems in the Making: The Emergence and Success of New Parties in New Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 38:1, 113–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentim, Vicente (2021). ‘Parliamentary Representation and the Normalization of Radical Right Support’, Comparative Political Studies, 54:14, 2475–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Heerden, Sjoerdje C., and Wouter van der Brug (2017). ‘Demonisation and Electoral Support for Populist Radical Right Parties: A Temporary Effect’, Electoral Studies, 47, 36–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg, Daan (2011). ‘Embodying Who We Are: Leader Group Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness’, The Leadership Quarterly, 22:6, 1078–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Spanje, Joost (2010). ‘Parties Beyond the Pale: Why Some Political Parties Are Ostracized by their Competitors While Others Are Not’, Comparative European Politics, 8:3, 354–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Spanje, Joost, and Nan Dirk de Graaf (2018). ‘How Established Parties Reduce Other Parties’ Electoral Support: The Strategy of Parroting the Pariah’, West European Politics, 41:1, 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Spanje, Joost, and Wouter van der Brug (2007). ‘The Party as Pariah: The Exclusion of Anti-Immigration Parties and Its Effect on Their Ideological Positions’, West European Politics, 30:5, 1022–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Spanje, Joost, and Wouter van der Brug (2009). ‘Being Intolerant of the Intolerant: The Exclusion of Western European Anti-Immigration Parties and Its Consequences for Party Choice’, Acta Politica, 44:4, 353–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Spanje, Joost, and Till Weber (2019). ‘Does Ostracism Affect Party Support? Comparative Lessons and Experimental Evidence’, Party Politics, 25:6, 745–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, Markus, and Katrin Praprotnik (2024). ‘Affective Polarization and Coalition Signals’, Political Science Research and Methods, 12:2, 336–53.
   Google Scholar
• Weschle, Simon (2018). ‘Quantifying Political Relationships’, American Political Science Review, 112:4, 1090–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westwood, Sean J., Shanto Iyengar, Stefaan Walgrave, Rafael Leonisio, Luis Miller, and Oliver Strijbis (2018). ‘The Tie That Divides: Cross-National Evidence of the Primacy of Partyism’, European Journal of Political Research, 57:2, 333–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieringa, Rein, and Maurits J. Meijers (2022). ‘New Kids on the Ballot: The Party-Level Determinants of New Party Success’, Party Politics, 28:1, 137–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar