過去研究已指出選舉輸家和贏家在民主滿意度和政治支持上具有顯著的差異，然而卻鮮少有研究檢視選舉輸家和贏家在情感極化的程度上是否有顯著的不同。本研究認為在選舉競爭激烈的情況下，選舉輸家對於勝選者缺乏信心，不信任勝選者會回應其需求，加深其與勝選陣營之間的鴻溝，進而具有較高的情感極化程度。另一方面，選舉贏家則因為處於勝選、掌握政治權力的一方，對於敵對陣營可能較具有包容力，因此會具有較低的情感極化程度。此外，本研究進一步提出選舉輸家/贏家與情感極化之間的關係會受到治效能感的調節作用而產生異質性的影響。利用「台灣選舉與民主化調查」2021年大規模基點調查面訪案的資料，本研究分析結果發現，選舉輸家和贏家在情感極化上具有顯著性的差異，亦即選舉輸家的情感極化程度高於選舉贏家，然而隨著政治效能感的提高，選舉輸家的情感極化程度會逐漸降低，而選舉贏家的情感極化程度則是逐漸增加。不過，進一步利用2008年到2020年四次總統選舉調查資料的分析結果則發現，選民類型、政治效能感和情感極化之間的關係在不同年度和選舉脈絡下會有所不同。整體而言，本研究的發現將有助於增進我們對於選舉輸家和贏家政治影響的瞭解，並且為探索情感極化成因的相關文獻做出貢獻。

Previous research has pointed out significant differences between electoral losers and winners in terms of democratic satisfaction and political support. However, there has been scarce examination of whether there are significant differences in affective polarization between electoral losers and winners. This study argues that in fiercely competitive elections, electoral losers lack confidence in the winners and distrust that their needs will be addressed, deepening the divide between them and the winning camp, and leading to higher levels of affective polarization. On the other hand, electoral winners, being on the victorious side and wielding political power, may be more inclusive towards the opposing camp, resulting in lower levels of affective polarization.

Additionally, this study further contends that the relationship between electoral losers/winners and affective polarization is subject to the moderating effect of political efficacy, yielding heterogeneous impacts. Using data from Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study Benchmark Survey, 2021 (TEDS2021), this study finds significant differences in affective polarization between electoral losers and winners, with electoral losers exhibiting higher levels of affective polarization than electoral winners. However, as political efficacy increases, the affective polarization of electoral losers gradually decreases, while that of electoral winners gradually increases. Nevertheless, further analysis using survey data from the four presidential elections between 2008 and 2020 reveals that the relationship between voter types, sense of political efficacy, and affective polarization varies in different years and electoral contexts. Overall, the findings of this study enhance our comprehension of the political influence exerted by electoral losers and winners and make a significant contribution to the existing body of literature by shedding light on the underlying causes of affective polarization.