Political Behavior

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 215–231 | Cite as

Party identification and party closeness in comparative perspective

  • Samuel H. Barnes
  • M. Kent Jennings
  • Ronald Inglehart
  • Barbara Farah


The present analysis uses data from 1974 and 1981 U. S. cross sections, which incorporate a panel, to compare the standard NES measure of party identification (ID) with a measure of partisanship derived from a party closeness question widely employed in cross-national research. Important features of the two scales are examined by transforming the closeness measure into a scale of very close, fairly close, not very close, and no preference corresponding to the seven-point ID scale. The scales are highly correlated and are similar in their reliability. More than 75% of the “independents” in the ID scale choose a party in the closeness version, and over half of these select the “fairly close” category. Respondents do not volunteer that they are independents when that alternative is not stated in the question.


Comparative Perspective Party Identification Political Psychology Closeness Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, Herbert. (1974). Some consequences of measurement error in survey data.American Journal of Political Science 18: 469–485.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, Samuel H. (1977).Representation in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, Samuel H., Max Kaase, et al. (1979).Political Action. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bastedo, Ralph W., and Milton Lodge. (1980). The meaning of party labels.Political Behavior 2: 287–308.Google Scholar
  5. Budge, Ian, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie, eds. (1976).Party Identification and Beyond. London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, David, and Donald Stokes. (1969).Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, James E. (1984). The intervals of party identification: Rescaling the partisan categories. Paper prepared for the 1984 Annual Convention of the APSA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Converse, Philip. (1969). Of time and partisan stability.Comparative Political Studies 2: 139–171.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, Philip, and Gregory Markus. (1979). ‘Plus ca change ...’: The new CPS election study panel.American Political Science Review 73: 2–49.Google Scholar
  10. Converse, Philip, and Roy Pierce. (1986).Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, Stephen C. (1985). Partisanship, independence, and no-preference: Another look at the measurement of party identification.American Journal of Political Science 29: 274–291.Google Scholar
  12. Dennis, Jack. (1981a). On being an independent partisan supporter. Paper presented at the 1981 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  13. Dennis, Jack. (1981b). Some properties of partisanship. Paper presented at the 1981 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York City.Google Scholar
  14. Dennis, Jack. (1982). New measures of partisanship in models of voting. Paper presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  15. Howell, Susan E. (1980). The behavioral component of changing partisanship.American Politics Quarterly 8: 279–302.Google Scholar
  16. Jennings, M. Kent, Klaus R. Allerback, and Leopold Rosenmayr. (1979). Generations and families: General orientations. In Samuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase, et al. (eds.),Political Action, pp. 449–486. Berverly Hill: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Jennings, M. Kent, and Gregory Markus. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: Results from the three-wave political socialization panel study.American Political Science Review 78: 1000–1018.Google Scholar
  18. Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard Niemi. (1974).The Political Character of Adolescents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard Niemi. (1981).Generations and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kaase, Max. (1976). Party identification and voting behavior in the West-German election of 1969. In Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie (eds.),Party Identification and Beyond, pp. 91–115. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Kamieniecki, Sheldon. (1985).Party Identification, Political Behavior, and the American Electorate. Boulder, CO: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  22. Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. (1986). Further evidence on the partisan affinities of independent “leaners.”British Journal of Political Science 16: 155–184.Google Scholar
  23. Markus, Gregory B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year; A report on the 1980 NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, Arthur H., and Martin P. Wattenberg. (1983). Measuring party identification: Independent or no partisan preference?American Journal of Political Science 27: 106–121.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, Warren E., and Philip C. Stouthard. (1975). Confessional attachment and electoral behavior in the Netherlands.European Journal of Political Research 3: 219–258.Google Scholar
  26. Norpoth, Helmut, and Jerrold Rusk. (1982). Partisan dealignment in the American electorate: Itemizing the deductions since 1964.American Political Science Review 76: 522–537.Google Scholar
  27. Petrocik, John. (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification.Political Methodology 1: 31–47.Google Scholar
  28. Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. (1981).Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shively, W. Phillips. (1980). The nature of party identification: A review of recent developments. In John C. Pierce and John L. Sullivan (eds.),The Electorate Reconsidered, pp. 219–236. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Valentine, David C., and John R. van Wingen. (1980). Partisanship, independence, and the partisan identification question.American Politics Quarterly 8: 165–186.Google Scholar
  31. Weisberg, Herbert F. (1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification.Political Behavior 2: 33–60.Google Scholar
  32. Weisberg, Herbert F. (1983). A new scale of partisanship.Political Behavior 5: 363–376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel H. Barnes
    • 2
  • M. Kent Jennings
    • 2
  • Ronald Inglehart
    • 2
  • Barbara Farah
    • 1
  1. 1.The New York TimesUSA
  2. 2.4010 Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations