Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 409–428 | Cite as

The Impact of Elite Polarization on Partisan Ambivalence and Indifference

Original Paper


Considerable evidence documents the impact that elite polarization has had on the influence of partisanship on vote choice and attitudes. Yet, much of the electorate remains moderate. This paper seeks to shed some light on this paradox. Examining trends from 1952 to 2004 demonstrates that the electorate is now more opinionated about the parties than in the recent past, but that a significant portion of the increase is in the form of negative statements about an individual’s party—there are fewer indifferent individuals, but the electorate is not overwhelmingly more one-sided, instead there has been an increase in both the proportion of one-sided and ambivalent individuals. It is next examined if the intensity of one’s ideological and partisan self-identification influences how they respond to elite polarization. The results suggest that non-ideologues and pure independents are more likely to be indifferent; all other groups have shown a decline in the likelihood of being indifferent and an increase in ambivalence. The results demonstrate that the public is responding to the increased clarity in elite positions in the form of an increased number of opinions, but for many the increase results from a mix of positive and negative reactions.


Polarization Partisan ambivalence Partisan indifference 

Supplementary material

11109_2012_9196_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (167 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 167 kb)


  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70, 542–555.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2006). Purple America. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage, C. J., & M. Conner. (2005). Attitudinal ambivalence and political opinion: Avenues for further research. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 144–166). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bafumi, J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. Journal of Politics, 71, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (1998). Electoral continuity and change, 1868–1996. Electoral Studies, 17(3):301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basinger, C. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 350–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burden, B. C., & Frisby, T, M. (2004). Preferences, partisanship, and whip activity in the U.S. house of representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 569–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carmines, E. G., McIver, J., & Stimson, J. A. (1987). Unrealized partisanship: A theory of dealignment. Journal of Politics, 49, 376–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Claassen, R. L., & Highton, B. (2009). Policy polarization among party elites and the significance of political awareness in the mass public. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Converse, P. E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2, 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dow, J. K. (2008). Gender differences in political knowledge: Distinguishing characteristics-based and returns-based differences. Political Behavior, 31, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture war?: The myth of a polarized America (2nd ed). New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics, 72, 556–560.Google Scholar
  20. Fiorina, M. P., & Levendusky, M. S. (2006). Disconnected: The political class versus the people. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fleisher, R., & Bond, J. R. (2004). The shrinking middle in the U.S. congress. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forgette, R. (2004). Party caucuses and coordination: Assessing caucus activity and party effects. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinksi, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69, 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Granberg, D., & Holmberg, S. (1990). The Berelson paradox reconsidered: Intention-behavior changes in U.S. and Swedish election campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 530–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Han, H., & Brady, D. W. (2007). A delayed return to historical norms: Congressional party polarization after the second world war. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 505–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hetherington, M. J. (2008). Turned off or turned on? How polarization affects political engagement. In P. Nivola & D. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation (Vol. 2). Washington: Brookings Institution Press and the Hoover Institution.Google Scholar
  29. Hetherington, M. J. (2009). Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huckfeldt, R., Morehouse Mendez, J., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobson, G. C. (2007). A divider, not a uniter: George W. Bush and the American people, The 2006 election and beyond. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  32. Jacoby, W. G. (1988). The impact of party identification on issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 643–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keele, L., & Wolak, J. (2008). Contextual sources of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 29, 573–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konda, T. M., & Sigelman, L. (1987). Public evaluations of the parties, 1952–1984. Journal of Politics, 49, 814–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levendusky, M. S. (2011). Red states vs. blue states: Going beyond the mean”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, indifferent and ambivalent: The consequence of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), The issue of belief: Essays in the intersection of non-attitudes and attitude change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, J. M., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics, 66, 847–867.Google Scholar
  41. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  43. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics, 46, 1061–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rohde, D. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudolph, T. J. (2005). Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26, 905–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudolph, T. J., & Popp, E. J. (2007). An information processing theory of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 28, 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schlesinger, J. A. (1985). The new American political party. American Political Science Review, 7, 1152–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sniderman, P., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stimson, J. A. (1999). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  50. Stimson, J. A. (2004). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In J. Krosnick (Ed.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Thornton, J. R. (2011). Ambivalent or indifferent? Examining the validity of an objective measure of partisan ambivalence. Political Psychology, 32, 863–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wattenberg, M. P. (1984). The decline of American political parties, 1952–1980. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wattenberg, M. P. (1994). The decline of American political parties, 1952–1992. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Yoo, S. (2010). Two types of neutrality: Ambivalence versus indifference and political participation. Journal of Politics, 72, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations