Thanks Roberto!! 🎉

In sum: studying affective polarisation along the urban–rural divide is key. It tells us whether differences between cities and the countryside amount to a full-fledged cleavage — rooted in identity — and deepens our understanding of how place itself fuels political conflict. 7/7

Crucially, these affective divides also map onto politics: Urbanites with stronger in-group bias tend to support GAL parties (Green/Alternative/Libertarian). Ruralites with stronger in-group bias lean toward TAN parties (Traditional/Authoritarian/Nationalist). 6/7

Residential mobility also matters: Urbanites who grew up in rural areas but later moved to cities are less polarised. Divided loyalties dampen affective divides — helping explain why ruralites are consistently more polarised than urbanites. 5/7

Feelings of place-based identity and resentment fuel these divides. The more strongly people identify with their place — and the more they feel it is being left behind — the more they favour their in-group over the out-group. 4/7

Using original survey data from 9 European countries 🇨🇿🇩🇰🇫🇷🇩🇪🇬🇷🇭🇺🇮🇹🇵🇱🇪🇸, we find clear evidence of affective polarisation along the urban–rural divide. Rural residents show stronger in-group bias, but urbanites, too, often favour their own. 3/7

We know cities and the countryside differ in voting behaviour and attitudes. But do urbanites and ruralites also dislike each other? We introduce the concept of place-based affective polarisation to capture these biases. 2/7

Thanks Roman!

I'm not sure how helpful the debate between context and composition really is. After all, composition itself contributes to context—shaping the social and cultural fabric of a place. Even if compositional effects are significant, place as a social identity can still be meaningful.

TL;DR: Place is not just where we live—it shapes how we think about politics and society. Understanding the urban-rural divide is key to grasping polarization in European politics today. 🏙️🏞️ (6/6)

Lastly, in a third paper, I show that urbanites and ruralites view each other as opposing groups, tied to stereotypes around class, education, and political attitudes. These perceptions deepen the urban-rural divide and fuel political polarization. (5/6)
🔗 osf.io/preprints/os...

In a second paper, @dschraff.bsky.social‬ and I develop the concept of place-based affective polarization. Rural and urban groups strongly identify with their in-groups while disliking out-groups, driving voting behavior along the transnational cleavage. (4/6)
🔗 osf.io/preprints/os...

In a paper published in JEPP, I find that local institutions act as a safe haven for those experiencing place-based resentment. Rural residents distrust national institutions more but maintain trust in local governance, especially in countries with high local autonomy. (3/6)
🔗 tinyurl.com/49zszx9u

Urban and rural residents increasingly view politics—and each other—through the lens of place. Rural voters often favor the radical right, while urban voters back the new left. This behavior is deeply rooted in place as a powerful marker of group membership. (2/6)

Sure, just sent you an email!📧

Merci, Roberto 😊

Thanks so much, Catherine!

Merci, Michael 🎉