Negative partisanship

Last updated

Negative partisanship is the tendency of some voters to form their political opinions primarily in opposition to political parties they dislike. [1] [2] Whereas traditional partisanship involves supporting the policy positions of one's own party, its negative counterpart in turn means opposing those positions of a disliked party. It has been claimed to be the cause of severe polarization in American politics. [3] It has also been studied in the Canadian context, [4] as well as in Australia and New Zealand. [5] Cross-national studies indicate that negative partisanship undermines public satisfaction with democracy, which threatens democratic stability. [6] Traditional partisans, on the other hand, are more likely to support their country's democracy, which promotes democratic stability. [6] [7]

Contents

United States

Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University, likens negative partisanship to a sports rivalry, where members of one side may have internal disagreements but are motivated to a far greater extent by hatred of the other side. According to his research, negative feelings towards the opposing political party have risen above positive towards one's own political party since the 1980s, along with the increase in straight-ticket voting. [3] The phenomenon of negative partisanship was further exacerbated during the 2016 election, in which both major candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, received record low "feeling thermometer" ratings in a Pew Research Center study. [3] [8]

Rachel Bitecofer expands on Abramowitz's ideas, advocating a theory under which elections are fundamentally driven by voter turnout instead of swing voters as traditionally believed. In this framework, it is more important to turn out the base than appeal to ideological moderates. [9] However, some like David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report have challenged this view, noting the phenomenon of Obama-Trump voters, or Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and/or 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. [9]

In other countries

In a comparative study of elections in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, researchers from the Université de Montréal examined the relationship between group identity, political ideology, positive party identification, negative party identification, and vote choice. [5] Under the traditional left–right political spectrum, negative partisanship is not an independent factor distinct from positive partisan identity, with psychologists John T. Cacioppo and Gary Berntson placing positive and negative attitudes on a single bipolar continuum. [10] However, more recent scholarship has found that positive and negative identity are not merely opposites. According to Henri Tajfel, members of a group must first gain a positive sense of identity before they can associate negative feelings with an outgroup. [11] But once negative feelings are established, they may produce a stronger reaction in the brain due to negativity bias. [12]

The Montréal researchers concluded that group identities are acquired early in life, and combine with ideology to determine positive party identification, but not negative party identification except in New Zealand. Under a logistic regression model with party identification and education as independent variables and vote choice as the dependent variable, both forms of party identification have a statistically significant impact on vote choice, while education is a significant determinant of vote choice for both parties only in the United States. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Philip Ernest Converse was an American political scientist. He was a professor in political science and sociology at the University of Michigan who conducted research on public opinion, survey research, and quantitative social science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political campaign</span> Attempt to influence the decision making process within a specific group

A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making progress within a specific group. In democracies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, by which representatives are chosen or referendums are decided. In modern politics, the most high-profile political campaigns are focused on general elections and candidates for head of state or head of government, often a president or prime minister.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter turnout</span> Percentage of a countrys eligible voters who actually vote within elections

In political science, voter turnout is the participation rate of a given election. This is typically either the percentage of registered voters, eligible voters, or all voting-age people. According to Stanford University political scientists Adam Bonica and Michael McFaul, there is a consensus among political scientists that "democracies perform better when more people vote."

Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes.

Negative campaigning is the process of deliberately spreading negative information about someone or something to worsen the public image of the described. A colloquial, and somewhat more derogatory, term for the practice is mudslinging.

Dealignment, in political science, is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it. It is contrasted with political realignment.

An independent voter, often also called an unaffiliated voter or non-affiliated voter in the United States, is a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent.

A partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for persons who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with political opponents.

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is affiliation with a political party. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Alan Ira Abramowitz is an American political scientist and author, known for his research and writings on American politics, elections in the United States, and political parties in the United States.

Clientelism or client politics is the exchange of goods and services for political support, often involving an implicit or explicit quid-pro-quo. It is closely related to patronage politics and vote buying. Clientelism involves an asymmetric relationship between groups of political actors described as patrons, brokers, and clients. In client politics, an organized minority or interest group benefits at the expense of the public. Client politics may have a strong interaction with the dynamics of identity politics. This is particularly common in a pluralist system, such as in the United States, where minorities can have considerable power shaping public policy. The opposite of client politics is 'entrepreneurial' politics, or conviction politics.

The Michigan model is a theory of voter choice, based primarily on sociological and party identification factors. Originally proposed by political scientists, beginning with an investigation of the 1952 Presidential election, at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Centre. These scholars developed and refined an approach to voting behaviour in terms of a voter's psychological attachment to a political party, acknowledging cleavages on a group level, which would be continued over the next two decades.

The Latino vote or refers to the voting trends during elections in the United States by eligible voters of Latino background. This phrase is usually mentioned by the media as a way to label voters of this ethnicity, and to opine that this demographic group could potentially tilt the outcome of an election, and how candidates have developed messaging strategies to this ethnic group.

Voting behavior refers to how people decide how to vote. This decision is shaped by a complex interplay between an individual voter's attitudes as well as social factors. Voter attitudes include characteristics such as ideological predisposition, party identity, degree of satisfaction with the existing government, public policy leanings, and feelings about a candidate's personality traits. Social factors include race, religion and degree of religiosity, social and economic class, educational level, regional characteristics, and gender. The degree to which a person identifies with a political party influences voting behavior, as does social identity. Voter decision-making is not a purely rational endeavor but rather is profoundly influenced by personal and social biases and deeply held beliefs as well as characteristics such as personality, memory, emotions, and other psychological factors. Voting advice applications and avoidance of wasted votes through strategic voting can impact voting behavior.

Political identity is a form of social identity marking membership of certain groups that share a common struggle for a certain form of power. This can include identification with a political party, but also positions on specific political issues, nationalism, inter-ethnic relations or more abstract ideological themes.

A feeling thermometer, also known as a thermometer scale, is a type of visual analog scale that allows respondents to rank their views of a given subject on a scale from "cold" to "hot", analogous to the temperature scale of a real thermometer. It is often used in survey and political science research to measure how positively individuals feel about a given group, individual, issue, or organisation, as well as in quality of life research to measure individuals' subjective health status. It typically uses a rating scale with options ranging from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100. Questions using the feeling thermometer have been included in every year of the American National Election Studies since 1968.

Political cognition refers to the study of how individuals come to understand the political world, and how this understanding leads to political behavior. Some of the processes studied under the umbrella of political cognition include attention, interpretation, judgment, and memory. Most of the advancements in the area have been made by scholars in the fields of social psychology, political science, and communication studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political polarization in the United States</span> Divisions among people with different political ideologies in the United States

Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rachel Bitecofer</span> American political scientist

Rachel Bitecofer is an American political scientist.

References

  1. ↑ Abramowitz, Alan I.; Webster, Steven W. (2018). "Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans: Negative Partisanship and Rabid Partisans". Political Psychology. 39: 119–135. doi: 10.1111/pops.12479 .
  2. ↑ Lelkes, Yphtach (2021). "What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?". The Forum. 19 (3): 481–497. doi:10.1515/for-2021-2027. ISSN   1540-8884. S2CID   244801529.
  3. 1 2 3 Abramowitz, Alan; Webster, Steven (September–October 2017). "'Negative Partisanship' Explains Everything". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2020-01-13.
  4. ↑ McGregor, R. Michael; Caruana, Nicholas J.; Stephenson, Laura B. (2015-07-03). "Negative Partisanship in a Multi-party System: The Case of Canada". Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 25 (3): 300–316. doi:10.1080/17457289.2014.997239. ISSN   1745-7289. S2CID   143516960.
  5. 1 2 3 Medeiros, Mike; Noël, Alain (June 2014). "The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo-American Democracies". Comparative Political Studies. 47 (7): 1022–1046. doi:10.1177/0010414013488560. hdl: 1866/12238 . ISSN   0010-4140. S2CID   154511200.
  6. 1 2 Ridge, Hannah M. (2020-11-12). "Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy". Political Behavior. 44 (3): 1271–1295. doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09658-7. ISSN   1573-6687. S2CID   228872010.
  7. ↑ Aldrich, John H.; Bussing, Austin; Krishnamurthy, Arvind; Madan, Nicolas; Ice, Katelyn Mehling; Renberg, Kristen M.; Ridge, Hannah M. (2020), "Does a partisan public increase democratic stability?", Research Handbook on Political Partisanship, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 256–265, doi:10.4337/9781788111997.00027, ISBN   978-1-78811-199-7, S2CID   219771883 , retrieved 2021-02-12
  8. ↑ "Partisanship and Animosity in 2016" (PDF). Pew Research Center. June 2016. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  9. 1 2 Freedlander, David (6 February 2020). "An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter". Politico. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
  10. ↑ Cacioppo, J. T.; Berntson, G. G. (1994). "Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates". Psychological Bulletin. 115 (3): 401–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401.
  11. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1974). "Social identity and intergroup behaviour". Social Science Information. 13 (2): 65–93. doi:10.1177/053901847401300204. S2CID   143666442.
  12. ↑ Ito, T. A.; Larsen, J. T.; Smith, N. K.; Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). "Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (4): 887–900. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887. PMID   9825526.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.