PS 320 5

Party Identification

What is Party Identification?

  • Central Concept in Electoral Research: Party Identification (PID) is foundational for understanding electoral behavior, organizing political attitudes more effectively than ideology alone.

  • PID as Identity:

    • It represents a psychological attachment to a political party, functioning as a perceptual screen filtering favorable information toward one’s “team.”

  • PID as a Running Tally of Performance:

    • It involves rational updates of political attitudes toward parties based on their performance.

  • Politically Consequential:

    • PID influences:

    • Policy attitudes

    • Voting behavior

    • Participation in political processes

How is Party Identification Measured?

  • ANES Branching Format:

    • Respondents are first asked, "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?"

    • If they respond Republican or Democrat, they are further queried, "Would you call yourself a strong or a not very strong Republican/Democrat?"

    • If Independent or Other, they answer, "Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican or Democratic Party?"

  • Seven-Point PID Scale:

    • Categories:

    • Strong Democrat

    • Weak Democrat

    • Lean Democrat

    • Independent

    • Lean Republican

    • Weak Republican

    • Strong Republican

Where Does Party Identification Come From?

  • Sources of PID:

    • Parental influence, family upbringing, and socialization throughout life.

    • Life experiences and personal attachment to party-related symbols (e.g., leaders, organizations).

    • Friends and partners in political discussions, as well as media influence.

    • The broader political, economic, and cultural contexts.

Parent-to-Child Transmission of Party Identification

  • Data from 1973, 1982, and 1997: Analysis shows the correlation between parents’ party identification and their children’s identification.

  • 1973 Parent-Child Transmission Rates:

    • When parents identified as Democrats:

    • Offspring's PID: 52% Democrat, 32% Independent, 17% Republican

    • Parents identified as Independents:

    • Offspring's PID: 42% Democrat, 51% Independent, 51% Republican

    • Parents identified as Republicans:

    • Offspring's PID: 7% Democrat, 17% Independent, 31% Republican

  • 1982 and 1997 Data:

    • Continued trends of PID transmission, showing stability but variability among Independents.

Is Party Identification Stable?

  • Traditional View:

    • PID is considered stable and enduring, often referred to as the “unmoved mover.”

  • Revisionist View:

    • Suggested that PID is responsive to political dynamics, short-term events, and campaign activities.

  • Counter-Revisionist View:

    • Claims that PID is stable when accounting for measurement error.

  • Individual vs. Macropartisanship:

    • Individual-level stability contrasts with macro-level movements in party identification over time.

Macropartisanship

  • Overview of Traditional and Revisionist Views:

    • Traditional view deems macropartisanship as steady, changing mainly during partisan realignments.

    • Studies (MacKuen, Erikson, Stimson) indicate that macropartisanship fluctuates more than previously thought, heavily influenced by short-term political and economic events.

    • Implication: A 1% shift can yield a 3-seat change in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Issue Evolution

  • Definition:

    • Issue evolution refers to transformations in party identification due to specific issues that can change political environments, garner public attention, and induce tension within the party system.

  • Properties of Issues:

    • They can reshape citizen-party dynamics, replacing dominant alignments.

  • Examples:

    • Racial issues (Carmines and Stimson, 1989) and abortion (Adams, 1997).

Mean Racial Liberalism in U.S. House by Party

  • Graphical Representation: Displays racial liberalism ratings across Democrats and Republicans.

Mean Party Identification, by Region

  • Graphical Data: Comparison of PID trends between the South and Non-South regions from 1952 to 1998.

Perceptions of Party Differences on Issues

  • Survey Data Outcomes:

    Issue

    Democrats (%)

    Republicans (%)

    No Difference (%)

    More domestic spending

    72

    9

    19

    Reducing defense spending

    59

    16

    26

    Guaranteed living standard

    71

    6

    22

    Aid to blacks

    56

    8

    36

    Equal role for women

    42

    9

    49

    National health insurance

    74

    7

    18

    Abortion rights

    73

    7

    20

    Regulate environment

    48

    9

    44

    • Source: Erikson and Tedin (2015).

Party Identification and Policy Opinions

  • Graphical Analysis: Shows how PID correlates to opinions on various issues.

Party Identification and Policy Opinion (Percent Liberal)

  • Breakdown of Opinions by Party Affiliation:

    Political Issue

    Strong DEM

    Weak DEM

    IND

    Weak GOP

    Strong GOP

    More domestic spending

    91

    73

    36

    12

    18

    Job guarantee

    59

    53

    33

    15

    9

    Less defense spending

    57

    48

    39

    21

    9

    Preferential hiring of blacks

    37

    21

    15

    2

    6

    Obamacare

    93

    77

    47

    28

    10

    Ban torture on terror suspects

    80

    73

    68

    59

    45

    Legalize gay marriage

    75

    82

    69

    51

    20

    Raises taxes on wealthy

    91

    91

    78

    68

    62

    Favor more gun control

    64

    57

    44

    24

    18

    Favor abortion rights

    61

    56

    41

    35

    21

    • Source: Erikson and Tedin (2015).

Distribution of Policy Opinions for Democrats

  • Graphical Analysis: Shows variance in liberal, centrist, and conservative opinions among Democrats.

Distribution of Policy Opinions for Republicans

  • Graphical Analysis: Indicates policy opinion distributions among Republicans (liberal, centrist, conservative).

Distribution of Policy Opinions by Information Level

  • For Democrats: Comparison between Low-Information and High-Information Democrats on policy opinions.

  • For Republicans: Comparison between Low-Information and High-Information Republicans regarding policy opinions.

Partisanship and Motivated Reasoning

  • Core Idea: Motivated reasoning suggests individuals actively interpret information, influenced by their pre-existing beliefs rather than passively receiving facts.

Why Study Motivated Reasoning?

  • Active Processors of Information:

    • Individuals interpret and assess information based on motivations rather than merely acquiring data.

  • Cognitive and Affective Components:

    • Motivated reasoning considers the interplay of both cognitive and emotional factors in political judgment.

  • Constructed Attitudes: Attitudes are subject to change based on internal and external cues rather than fixed.

The “Attitude-as-Construction” Argument

  • Attitude Creation:

    • Individuals construct attitudes rather than drawing from a static mental repository.

    • They use various data sources—behavior, moods, conflicting beliefs—to construct their attitudes.

    • Influence of Context:

    • Situational context and social cues can significantly alter attitudes.

Motivation and Motivational Goals

  • Definition of Motivation:

    • A drive to act based on reasons behind thoughts and behavior.

  • Types of Goals:

    • Accuracy Goals: Aim to arrive at correct decisions, which demand higher cognitive engagement.

    • Directional Goals: Aim to reach a desired conclusion, requiring less cognitive effort.

A Typology of Motivated Reasoning

  • Framework Breakdown:

    Motivation Type

    Description

    Intuitive Scientist

    • Seeks accurate conclusions, adjusts for bias, Bayesian updating.
      | Partisan Reasoner |

    • Seeks justifications for desired conclusions, selective information processing.
      | Low Motivation |

    • Heuristic processing, potential lack of detailed processing.
      | Classical Rationality |

    • Idealized reasoning as impersonal calculation (traditional rational choice).

Steps in the Reasoning Process

  1. Activation of Goals:

    • Determining the underlying goals that guide individual reasoning.

  2. Gathering Evidence:

    • Influenced by motivational goals affecting effort and thoroughness.

  3. Assessing Implications:

    • Evaluating the evidence gathered.

  4. Reassessment of Implications:

    • Revisiting the interpretations of the evidence.

  5. Integration and Judgment:

    • Making conclusive decisions based on the evidence assessed.

Step 1: Activation of Goals

  • Conditions Affecting Goal Determination:

    • Accuracy goals are prominent when decisions bear personal consequences or accountability.

    • Directional goals thrive in high-involvement settings where counterarguments can be managed.

Step 2: Gathering Evidence

  • Influences:

    • Intuitive Scientist:

    • Engages in thorough and unbiased information gathering.

    • Intuitive Lawyer:

    • Conducts selective searches for favorable information.

Selective Exposure and Attention

  • Selective Exposure:

    • Preference for certain media sources based on aligned beliefs.

  • Study Example: Sweeney and Gruber (1984) indicated varying levels of interest among Nixon, McGovern, and undecided voters during the Watergate hearings.

Steps 3 & 4: Assessing/Reassessing Evidence

  • Assessment Tactics:

    • Intuitive Scientists strive for balanced evaluation, while Intuitive Lawyers may favor confirming evidence.

  • Study Examples: Lord and Lepper (1979) and Vallone, Ross, and Lepper (1985) showcase biased assessments based on pre-existing beliefs.

Step 5: Integration and Judgment

  • Judgment Process:

    • Intuitive Scientists incorporate comprehensive evidence while Intuitive Lawyers may determine outcomes favoring established beliefs.

The Hot Cognition Thesis

  • Core Concept: The activation of one concept makes related concepts more accessible, affecting response times.

  • Experimental Overview: Exposure to a prime affects attitudes towards a target based on prior associations.

Partisan Cues Affecting Support for Policies

  • Table of Support Levels:

    • Displays varying support for “Bush Plan” versus “Obama Plan” depending on partisan identification and cues.

Partisan Cues Affect Responsibility Attributions

  • Graphical Analysis:

    • Comparison of gubernatorial responsibility perceptions under different partisan cues, showcasing differences in attribution based on party alignment.

Partisan Cues Affect Interpretation of Facts

  • Fact Interpretation Framework:

    • Examines how political beliefs can disconnect interpretation from reality, showing biases in reception and interpretation of information.