Postdoc at the University of Hamburg. Empirical social scientist researching polarization & democracy from a political psych perspective.
I do research and I run.

@versteegenluca.bsky.social
Postdoc at the University of Hamburg. Empirical social scientist researching polarization & democracy from a political psych perspective.
I do research and I run.
For my new research unit Politics of Democracy at the Berlin Social Science Center @wzb.bsky.social, we have 3 open research positions.
2 postdocs: 4 + 2 years (100%)
1 doc: 2 years (75%)
Starting date: 1 March 2027 (negotiable)
Application deadline: 1 November
🔥 Trending on SciLove today 🔥
🔬 Cool Citizens? How Affectively Unpolarized Citizens View and Participate in Democracy
👤 Versteegen et al., 2026
📖 Political Behavior @polbehavior.bsky.social
🔗 https://www.scilove.app/article/10.1007/s11109-026-10190-3
#PoliSci #AcademicSky #AcademicChatter
🧐 What do citizens think about "null results" in scientific research?
To find out, @johnholbein1.bsky.social & I fielded a large-scale online experiment. We gave respondents straightforward info about a study, asked them some Qs, showed them the results, then asked them Qs again.
So, does affective polarization change citizens’ winningness to support democratic norms or participate? It depends on what “low AP” we’re comparing “high AP” to. 🧵10/10 Thanks to everyone who helped us develop this paper along the way! : )
unpolarized groups and, crucially, that the two differ on our various outcomes. Spoiler alert: we find that no group is consistently “better” for democracy (ie more trusting, democratic, participating). It seems that different groups contribute different elements to our democratic dinner. 🧵9/10
We conduct cluster analyses on 3 US datasets to find the relevant patterns of unpolarized citizens and map those clusters on a bunch of outcomes (trust, norm support, partisan behavior, participation). We find TWO relevant 🧵8/10
above? In the paper, we use a meal metaphor: whether people LOVE or HATE two meals matters greatly for how they think about the chef and whether they want to participate in a dinner. 🧵7/10
this person has an AP score of 10, denoting low affective polarization. But shouldn’t it matter whether we’re comparing affectively polarized individuals to a baseline that loves both parties, feels lukewarm toward both parties, hates both parties, or a heterogeneous mix of all of the 🧵6/10
This operationalization nicely differentiates between high and low affective polarization. But it treats everyone with low affective polarization scores alike. To illustrate this for a 2-party case: no matter if someone likes both parties with 80 and 70, 50 and 40, or 30 and 20, 🧵5/10
We argue that this blind spot is a consequence of how we measure AP: The standard operationalization calculates affective polarization as the difference (or, in multi-party systems, variance) in people’s warmth toward the available parties. 🧵4/10
group and take them as the reference we compare affectively polarized people to. But the share of citizens who is NOT affectively polarized is huge and treating all of them alike risks masking heterogeneity. 🧵3/10
In a new paper, @polpsychjoe.bsky.social , @lilymasonphd.bsky.social, and I argue that such questions assume homogenous levels of norm support and participation among affectively UNpolarized citizens. That is, we tend to treat all affectively unpolarized citizens as one
🧵2/10
🚨🚨 New publication: 🚨🚨
Does affective polarization (AP) change citizens’ willingness to support democratic norms or participate?
🧵1/10
Full paper here: link.springer.com/article/10.1...
One week left to apply for this PhD position in my project on citizens’ role in democracy ⬇️⬇️
🚨🚨 Job: Please share 🙌 - what? PhD position in my DFG-funded project on how citizens understand their role in democracy. - when? Application deadline Jul 1, job start Sept 1 or soon thereafter - how? www.uni-hamburg.de/en/stellenan...