Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 453–475

Justifying Party Identification: A Case of Identifying with the “Lesser of Two Evils”

Original Paper

Abstract

Despite the centrality of party identification to our understanding of political behavior, there remains remarkable disagreement regarding its nature and measurement. Most scholars agree that party identities are quite stable relative to attitudes. But do partisans defend their identities, or does this stability result from Bayesian learning? I hypothesize that partisans defend their identities by generating “lesser of two evils” justifications. In other words, partisan identity justification occurs in multidimensional attitude space. This also helps to explain the weak relationship between attitudes toward the two parties observed by proponents of multidimensional partisanship. I test this hypothesis in an experiment designed to evoke inconsistency between one’s party identity and political attitudes. To establish generalizability, I then replicate these results through aggregate level analysis of data from the ANES.

Keywords

Party identification Partisanship Partisan dimensionality Identity defense Motivated reasoning Lesser of two evils 

References

  1. Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3(4), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.). (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  3. Achen, C. H. (1992). Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research. Political Behavior, 14(3), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Achen, C. H. (2002). Parental socialization and rational party identification. Political Behavior, 24(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alvarez, M. R. (1990). The puzzle of party identification: Dimensionality of an important concept. American Politics Quarterly, 18(4), 476–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody, R. A., & Rothenberg, L. S. (1988). The instability of partisanship: An analysis of the 1980 presidential election. British Journal of Political Science, 18(4), 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row.Google Scholar
  9. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, J., & Mackie, D. (1983). Cognitive dissonance in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion reason, and the human brain. New York: G. P. Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row.Google Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, M. P. (2002). Parties and partisanship: A 40-year retrospective. Political Behavior, 24(2), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franklin, C. H. (1984). Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 28(3), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franklin, C. H. (1992). Measurement and the dynamics of party identification. Political Behavior, 14(3), 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin, C. H., & Jackson, J. E. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review, 77(4), 957–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1998). Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 794–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goren, P. (2007). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation: Modification and extensions. Political Behavior, 29(3), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, D. P. (1988). On the dimensionality of public sentiment toward partisan and ideological groups. American Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 758–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 872–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1994). How stable is party identification? Political Behavior, 16(4), 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, J. E. (1975). Issues, party choices, and presidential votes. American Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamieniecki, S. (1988). The dimensionality of partisan strength and political independence. Political Behavior, 10(4), 364–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katz, R. S. (1979). The dimensionality of party identification: Cross-national perspectives. Comparative Politics, 11(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting 1936–1960. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  32. Kroh, M., & Selb, P. (2009). Inheritance and the dynamics of party identification. Political Behavior, 31(4), 559–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kunda, Z., Davies, P. G., Adams, B. D., & Spencer, S. J. (2002). The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: Activation, dissipation, and resurrection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kunda, Z., & Sanitioso, R. (1989). Motivated changes in the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgments? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 522–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Marcus, G. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcus, G., MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., & Keele, L. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotions. In D. P. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  42. Markus, G. E., & Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1055–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayhew, D. R. (2002). Electoral realignments: A critique of an American genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Page, B. I., & Jones, C. C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1071–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  46. Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). Motivated reasoning, affect, and the role of memory in voter decision making. In D. P. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”? Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shively, W. P. (1979). The development of party identification among adults: Exploration of a functional model. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1039–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Wolfe, C. T., Fong, C., & Dunn, M. A. (1998). Automatic activation of stereotypes: The role of self-image threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1139–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Taber, C., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valentine, D. C., & Van Wingen, J. R. (1980). Partisanship, independence, and the partisan identification question. American Politics Quarterly, 8(2), 1965–1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinschenk, A. C. (2010). Revisiting the political theory of party identification. Political Behavior, 32(4), 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weisberg, H. F. (1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification. Political Behavior, 2(1), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weisberg, H. F., & Christenson, D. P. (2007). Changing horses in wartime? The 2004 Presidential Election. Political Behavior, 29(2), 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisberg, H. F., & Christenson, D. P. (2010). Partisan defection and change in the 2008 US presidential election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 20(2), 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political ScienceUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations