Ja interessante vraag! Met het NKO kunnen we deels ook teruggaan tot '21. De getallen worden dan klein, dus puur verkennend, maar suggereert dat (ruime) meerderheid van kiezers die in '23 GL-PvdA stemden en nu in '25 D66, in '21 idd ook D66 stemden. Plus een kwart ofzo op andere partijen

We are also learning a lot already from the exciting work done on this topic by among others @ethanbusby.bsky.social, @atsouloumalakoudi.bsky.social, Henry Maes, Gaetano Scaduto, and their colleagues and many others.

This is part of an ongoing project with @jnareal.bsky.social about political stereotypes. We hope to learn more about how citizens imagine each other in polarized times. We will study this in surveys & using text analysis of (online) political discussion among politicians, citizens and media (🇳🇱&🇧🇷)

Takeaway: stereotypes aren’t tidy boxes. They’re webs tying together images about what people believe, where they belong, and what they’re like. They flatten the line between elites and supporters, and mix cognition with affect. That matters for how we study them, and for reducing misperceptions.

Ambiguity 3: many “traits” weren’t neutral descriptions, but expressive and moralizing. Assigning problematic traits is a way to delegitimize opponents in a way that ideas or groups cannot. Often these targeted political style: “fanatical”, “intolerant”. That’s neither fully an idea or personality.

Ambiguity #2: the categories themselves also blur. An image like “religious” (dominant in Poland) denotes a group, issue, and trait all at once. Traits (like “corrupt”, dominant in Brazil) often imply important political issues. We found the categories often go together seamlessly.

All of this is simple on paper, but less so in people’s minds.

Ambiguity #1: when asked to describe voters, many talked about politicians. Our mental image of a political camp blends elites and masses into a single picture. We judge voters through the behavior (or scandals) of their leaders.

Dovetailing with US findings, we find that, across all cases, people associate political camps mainly with issues, alongside traits. Answers were however strongly shaped by context (for instance, emphasizing corruption 🇧🇷, environment/refugees 🇩🇪, dishonesty 🇬🇧, religion/democracy 🇵🇱).

We looked for three ways people might perceive political groups: by issues or ideas (“against refugees”), by social groups (“young”), or by traits (“stupid”). These reveal different ways of looking at political conflict. Here we borrowed from an influential book by @ethanbusby.bsky.social et al.