Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 103–132 | Cite as

Measuring Partisanship as a Social Identity in Multi-Party Systems

  • Alexa BankertEmail author
  • Leonie Huddy
  • Martin Rosema
Original Paper

Abstract

There is no doubt that partisanship is a powerful influence on democratic political behavior. But there is also a lively debate on its nature and origins: Is it largely instrumental in nature and shaped by party performance and issues stances? Or is it basically a long-standing expressive identity reinforced by motivated reasoning and strong emotions? We assess the nature of partisanship in the European context, examining the measurement properties and predictive validity of a multi-item partisan identity scale included in national surveys conducted in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.K. Using a latent variable model, we show that an eight-item partisan identity scale provides greater information about partisan intensity than a standard single-item and has the same measurement properties across the three countries. In addition, the identity scale better predicts in-party voting and political participation than a measure of ideological intensity (based on both left–right self-placement and agreement with the party on key issues), providing support for an expressive approach to partisanship in several European democracies.

Keywords

Partisanship Political participation Social identity Latent trait Scale measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the directors of the LISS, Swedish Citizen Panel, and the British Election Study for the opportunity to include items in their ongoing surveys. We also wish to thank Stanley Feldman, Jacob Sohlberg, Yanna Krupnikov, Patrick Kraft, Michelle Torres, and a number of other colleagues who provided comments and helpful insight on the project. The survey data used in this paper as well as the replication files are available at the journal’s page on Dataverse: (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/polbehavior).

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9349_MOESM1_ESM.docx (544 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 544 kb)

References

  1. Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to european parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 370–382. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00489.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, Bengt. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartle, J., & Bellucci, P. (Eds.). (2014). Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brader, T. A., & Tucker, J. A. (2009). What’s left behind when the party’s over: Survey experiments on the effects of partisan cues in Putin’s Russia. Politics & Policy, 37(4), 843–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brader, T., Tucker, J. A., & Duell, D. (2013). Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46(11), 1485–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136.Google Scholar
  10. Burden, B. C., & Klofstad, Casey A. (2005). Affect and cognition in party identification. Political Psychology, 26(6), 869–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2003). The effect of education on nationalism and ethnic exclusionism: An international comparison. Political Psychology, 24(2), 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (2002). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dalton, R. J., & Weldon, S. (2007). Partisanship and party system institutionalization. Party Politics, 13(2), 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dancey, L., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 686–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davidov, E. (2009). Measurement equivalence of nationalism and constructive patriotism in the ISSP: 34 countries in a comparative perspective. Political Analysis, 17(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Ayala, R. J. (2013). Theory and practice of item response theory. New York City: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerker, Jaap W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2–3), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez-Vazquez, P. (2014). And yet it moves: The effect of election platforms on party policy images. Comparative Political Studies, 47(14), 1919–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garry, J. (2007). Making party identification more versatile: Operationalising the concept for the multiparty setting. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garzia, D. (2013). Changing parties, changing partisans: The personalization of partisan attachments in Western Europe. Political Psychology, 34(1), 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. González, R., Manzi, J., Saiz, J. L., Brewer, M., Tezanos-Pinto, D., Torres, D., & Aldunate, N. (2008). Interparty attitudes in Chile: Coalitions as superordinate social identities. Political Psychology, 29(1), 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 872–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identity of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and political identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hagevi, M. (2015). Bloc identification in multi-party systems: the case of the Swedish two-bloc system. West European Politics, 38(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis in R-A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(7), 2.Google Scholar
  33. Holmberg, S. (1994). Party identification compared across the Atlantic. In K. Jennings & T. E. Mann (Eds.), Elections at home and abroad: Essays in honor of Warren E. Miller (pp. 93–121). University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  34. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, Peter M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, Peter M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. H, J. D., Kernell, Georgia, & Leoni, Eduardo L. (2005). Institutional context, cognitive resources and party attachments across democracies. Political Analysis, 13(4), 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huddy, Leonie. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology., 22, 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huddy, L. (2013). From group identity to political commitment and cohesion. In Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears, & Robert Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 737–773). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, Lene. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(01), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnston, R. (2006). party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences? Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kayser, M. A., & Wlezien, Christopher. (2011). Performance pressure: Patterns of partisanship and the economic vote. European Journal of Political Research, 50(3), 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research,. doi: 10.1177/0049124114543236.Google Scholar
  45. Leach, C. W., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lenz, G. S. (2013). Follow the leader?: how voters respond to politicians' policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, Lois E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Medeiros, M., & Noël, A. (2013). The forgotten side of partisanship: Negative party identification in four Anglo-American democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(7), 1022–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meffert, M. F., Gschwend, T., & Schütze, N. (2009). Coalition preferences in multiparty systems. Presented at Annual Conference of the International Society of Political Psychology, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  50. Neely, F. (2007). Party identification in emotional and political context: A replication. Political Psychology, 28(6), 667–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oberski, D. L. (2014). Evaluating sensitivity of parameters of interest to measurement invariance in latent variable models. Political Analysis, 22(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pérez, E. O., & Hetherington, M. J. (2014). Authoritarianism in black and white: Testing the cross-racial validity of the child rearing scale. Political Analysis, 22(3), 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rizopoulos, D. (2006). ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Samejima, F. (1970). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 35(1), 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Samejima, F. (1974). Normal ogive model on the continuous response level in the multidimensional latent space. Psychometrika, 39(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomassen, J. (1976). Party identification as a cross-national concept: Its meaning in The Netherlands. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, & D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond: Representations of voting and party competition (pp. 63–79). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Thomassen, J., & Rosema, M. (2009). Party identification revisited. In B. John & B. Paolo (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes (pp. 42–59). London: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science.Google Scholar
  59. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations