Work on affective polarization has raised concerns over increased partisan discrimination, i.e., that people treat each other differently based on the political party they support. Two questions follow from these findings: First, to what extent does partisan differential treatment constitute a form of discrimination? Second, how do citizens perceive the severity and frequency of partisan differential treatment?
This study investigates the latter question and indirectly speaks to the first by measuring perceptions of partisan differential treatment relative to other forms of discrimination, e.g., based on gender or race. Using a cross-national survey in seven countries (US, UK, CA, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, and Germany), we test how perceptions of severity and frequency of various forms of discrimination are influenced by individual-level factors, such as partisanship or personal experiences with discrimination, alongside country-level affective polarization.
We employ a pairwise comparison task where respondents evaluate roughly 240 scenarios of differential treatment across formal (e.g., employment, housing) and informal settings. We use hierarchical Bradley-Terry models to estimate perceptions of severity relative to other forms of discrimination, as well as partisan biases in such perceptions. Overall, partisan differential treatment is viewed as less severe than most other forms of discrimination. However, we find several country-level differences and significant partisan biases in badness perceptions, as in-partisan differential treatment is generally seen as worse than out-partisan differential treatment. Additional analyses will test how perceptions of partisan differential treatment differ by partisan groups and whether country-level differences are driven by the presence of far-right or extremist parties.