Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:27:26.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy over party: comparing the effects of candidate ideology and party on affective polarization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2019

Yphtach Lelkes Open the ORCID record for Yphtach Lelkes [Opens in a new window]
Yphtach Lelkes*
Affiliation:
Annenberg School for Communication, and Political Science (Secondary), University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street. Philadelphia, PA19104, United States
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ylelkes@upenn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At least two theories have been offered that explain the rise of affective polarization. Some scholars, relying on social identity theory, argue that as the relevance of party identification increased, Americans became more likely to see their in-party in positive terms and the out-party in negative terms. Other scholars argue that affective polarization is a reaction to increasingly extreme political actors. This study seeks to arbitrate between these two theories of affective polarization through a survey experiment which asks respondents to rate candidates whose party (or lack thereof) and ideology (or lack thereof) is randomly assigned. In line with the policy-oriented view of affective polarization, respondents reacted far more strongly to ideology than party, especially if it was the ideology of the member of the out-party.

Keywords

Public opinion
Type
Research Note
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 189 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, AI and Webster, SW (2018) Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like Rabid Partisans. Political Psychology 39, 119–135, ISSN: 0162895X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, RM (1998) Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bafumi, J and Shapiro, RY (2009) A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics 71, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, AJ, Huber, GA and Lenz, GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical turk. Political Analysis 20, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bougher, LD (2017) The correlates of discord: identity, issue alignment, and political hostility in polarized America. Political Behavior 39, 731–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, GL (2003) Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Converse, PE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In Apter, D (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 206–261.Google Scholar
Druckman, J and Levendusky, MS (2018) What do we measure when we measure affective partisanship? Public Opinion Quarterly. Paper in press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M (2016) Has the American public polarized? Contemporary American Politics 2, 283–301.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M (2017) Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting, and Political Stalemate. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S, Sood, G and Lelkes, Y (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76, 405–431. ISSN: 0033-362X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S, Lelkes, Y, Levendusky, M, Malhotra, N and Westwood, SJ (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States affective polarization: an outgrowth of Partisan social identity. Annual Review of Political Science, 1–35. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034Google Scholar
Johnston, CD (2018) Authoritarianism, affective polarization, and economic ideology. Political Psychology 39, 219–238. ISSN: 14679221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, DR and Kalmoe, NP (2017) Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Klar, S, Krupnikov, Y and Ryan, JB (2018) Affective polarization or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a dislike for the opposing party from a dislike of Partisanship. Public opinon quarterly.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelkes, Y (2018) Affective polarization and ideological sorting: a reciprocal, Albeit weak, relationship. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 16, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, MS (2009) The partisan sort: how liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, M and Malhotra, N (2016) Does media coverage of partisan polarization affect political attitudes?. Political Communication 33(2), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, L (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, L and Wronski, J (2018) One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen Partisanship. Political Psychology 39, 257–277. ISSN: 0162895XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, C, Margalit, Y, Malhotra, N and Levendusky, M (2018) The economic consequences of Partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science 62, 5–18. ISSN: 15405907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, KJ, Leeper, TJ, Druckman, JN and Freese, J (2016) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, 109–138. ISSN: 2052-2630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, TR and Poole, KT (1987) The relationship between information, ideology and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science 31, 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, JC and Sutherland, JL (2016) How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior 38, 485–508. ISSN: 01909320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, PM (2000) Taking sides:a fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Lupia, A, McCubbins, MD and Popkin, SL (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, P and Stiglitz, E (2012) The Reputational Premium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=Sniderman+and+stiglitz+2012\&btnG=\&hl=en\&as\_sdt=0,5#0.Google Scholar
Tomz, M and Van Houweling, RP (2009) The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, SW and Abramowitz, AI (2017) The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. American Politics Research 45, 621–647. ISSN: 15523373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lelkes supplementary material

Appendix

Download Lelkes supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 114.8 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Lelkes Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/V7HWP4
Link