Our aim is to propose guidelines for the analysis of political personalization and personalized politics in general and for behavioural personalization in particular. The first guideline is based on our understanding that personalization comes at the cost of party politics. It suggests that in order to classify politics as more or less personalized, we must compare it to an alternative party-oriented politics. Based on a synthesis of existing theoretical work, the second guideline suggests three analytical dimensions to clarify the multidimensional concept of personalization: arena, level and character. Arena refers to where personalization takes place; level refers to whose power or independence is changing; and character refers to how personalization is manifested. Furthermore, we present the contributions of this symposium and explain how they follow the two guidelines and advance our understanding and knowledge of behavioural political personalization.
BalmasMRahatGSheaferT (2014) Two routes to personalized politics: centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics20(1): 37–51.
2.
BittnerA (2011) Platform or Personality?: The Role of Party Leaders in Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BøggildTPedersenHH (2018) Campaigning on behalf of the party? Party constraints on candidate campaign personalisation. European Journal of Political Research57(4): 883–899.
4.
BøggildTCampbellRNielsenMK, et al. (2021) Which personality fits personalized representation?Party Politics27(2): 269–281.
5.
CabadaLTomšičM (2016) The rise of person-based politics in the new democracies: The Czech Republic and Slovenia. Politics in Central Europe12(2): 29–50.
6.
Canes-WroneBBradyDWCoganJF (2002) Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review96(1): 127–140.
7.
CarsonJLKogerGLeboMJ (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science54(3): 598–616.
8.
ChiruM (2018) Exploring the role of decentralized personalization for legislative behaviour and constituency service. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press, pp. 143–161.
9.
CrossWPYoungL (2015) Personalization of campaigns in an SMP system: the Canadian case. Electoral Studies39: 306–315.
10.
CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) (2018) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press.
11.
FriedmanAFriedbergC (2021) Personalized politics and weakened parties—an axiom? Evidence from the Israeli case. Party Politics27(2): 258–268.
12.
GaujaA (2018). Party organization and personalization. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press, pp. 125–142.
13.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
HermansLVergeerM (2013) Personalization in e-campaigning: a cross-national comparison of personalization strategies used in candidate websites of 17 countries in EP elections 2009. New Media & Society15: 72–92.
15.
KarvonenL (2010) The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
16.
KriesiHP (2012) Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics18(6): 825–844.
17.
KruikemeierSVan NoortGVliegenthartR (2013) Getting closer: the effects of personalized and interactive online political communication. European Journal of Communication28(1): 53–66.
18.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) ‘Effective’ number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
19.
LangerAI (2007) An historical exploration of the personalization of politics in print media: the British prime ministers 1945–1999. Parliamentary Affairs60(3): 357–368.
20.
LangerAISagarzazuI (2018) Bring back the party: personalisation, the media and coalition politics. West European Politics41(2): 472–495.
21.
LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) (2015) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
MainwaringSTorcalM (2006) Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In: KatzRSCrottyW (eds) Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage, pp. 204–227.
PoguntkeTWebbP (2005a) The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
PoguntkeTWebbP (2005b) The presidentialization of politics in democratic societies: A framework for analysis. In: PoguntkeTWebbP (eds) The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–25.
26.
PoguntkeTWebbPD (2018) Presidentialization, personalization and populism: The hollowing out of party government. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press, pp. 181–196.
27.
PruysersSCrossW (2016) Research note: ‘Negative’ personalization: Party leaders and party strategy. Canadian Journal of Political Science49(3): 539–558.
28.
PruysersSCrossWKatzR (2018) Personalism, personalization and party politics. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press, pp. 1–18.
29.
RahatGKenigO (2018) From Party Politics to Personalized Politics?: Party Change and Political Personalization in Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
31.
RahatGZamirS (2018) Personalized politics online. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press, pp. 103–124.
32.
ReinemannCWilkeJ (2007) It’s the debates, stupid! How the introduction of televised debates changed the portrayal of chancellor candidates in German press, 1949–2005. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics12(4): 92–111.
33.
RenwickAPiletJ (2016) Faces on the Ballot: The Personalization of Electoral Systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
Ferreira daSilva FGarziaDAngelisA De (2021) From party to leader mobilization? The personalization of voter turnout. Party Politics27(2): 220–233.
35.
StanyerJ (2013) Intimate Politics: Publicity, Privacy and Personal Lives of Politicians in Media-Saturated Democracies. Cambridge: Polity.
36.
StewartDK (2018) Primaries and the personalization of party leadership. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London: ECPR Press, pp. 79–102.
37.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2012) The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
38.
VragaEK (2017) Which candidates can be Mavericks? The effects of issue disagreement and gender on candidate evaluations. Politics & Policy45(1): 4–30.
39.
WattenbergMP (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
40.
WautersBBoutecaNde VetB (2021) Personalization of parliamentary behaviour: Conceptualization and empirical evidence from Belgium (1995–2014). Party Politics27(2): 246–257.
41.
ZittelT (2015) Constituency candidates in comparative perspective – How personalized are constituency campaigns, why, and does it matter?Electoral Studies39: 286–294.
42.
ZittelTGschwendT (2008) Individualised constituency campaigns in mixed-member electoral systems: Candidates in the 2005 German elections. West European Politics31(5): 978–1003.
