Identity Construction and Threat Perceptions Around Affectively Polarized Issues in Finland

A puzzling aspect of affective polarization is its ability to manifest in asymmetrical patterns where one side of a political divide is more polarized than the other. This indicates that the understanding and significance of divisive issues, as well as the pathways towards affective evaluations of other citizens, might differ depending on which side a citizen stands on. Such qualitative aspects of affective polarization are as yet relatively underexplored in comparison to the abundance of quantitative studies about the phenomenon. The aim of this study is to better understand the underlying mechanisms that could possibly explain asymmetrical affective polarization. The paper explores the qualitative aspects of two possible explanations. Firstly, citizens in opposing opinion camps may construct social identities around the issue with varying degrees of entitativity: weak or unstable identities may not drive strong affect to the same extent as strong identities. Secondly, the perceived threat associated with the opposing opinion can vary in type and intensity depending on which side of the issue divide citizens stand. Based on intergroup threat theory, differentiations can be made between realistic threats towards people and symbolic threats towards identities and values. We conduct semi-structured interviews to gauge how citizens construct identities in relation to people with similar or opposing opinions on contentious issues, and to understand what types of threats they associate with those of opposing opinions. The interviewees are recruited through the Finnish citizen panel Barometern and sampled to represent strong stances on both the socioeconomic and sociocultural ideological dimensions. Previous research into issue-based affective polarization has mainly focused on high-profile and divisive issues of a one-time nature, such as the Brexit referendum or vaccine attitudes during Covid-19, whereas this study targets issues that divide citizens persistently. By identifying the themes and narratives that connect identities to threat perceptions, we contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of what it means to be “affectively polarized”, particularly regarding the pathways along which opinions may translate into both positive and negative affect. This, in turn, helps us understand asymmetries in affective polarization patterns and contributes toward more precise questions in quantitatively oriented studies of issue-based affective polarization.