Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 675–702 | Cite as

Disputed Ownership: Parties, Issues, and Traits in the Minds of Voters

  • Stephen N. Goggin
  • Alexander G. Theodoridis
Original Paper

Abstract

Is party “ownership” of issues and traits manifest in the minds of voters in ways that could generate the oft-hypothesized implications for mass and elite electoral behavior? We specify two ways in which it may be: party reputations refer to the association of a trait or issue with a party; candidate stereotyping requires that party labels prompt differential assignment of attributes or competencies to candidates. We develop a quantitative measure of both ownership types, and apply it to issues and traits. New national survey data provide the first evidence that party reputation ownership exists for issues and traits. New experimental tests reveal evidence of candidate stereotyping for issues, but not traits. Voters associate some traits more with one party, but may not assign them to candidates based upon party label, demonstrating a key difference in the nature and likely implications of issue and trait ownership.

Keywords

Ownership Issues Traits Candidates Partisanship Experiments Parties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Doug Ahler, Steve Ansolabehere, Adam Berinsky, Henry Brady, David Broockman, John Bullock, David Campbell, Devin Caughey, Scott Clifford, Pat Egan, David Fortunato, Sean Gailmard, Tom Hansford, Danny Hayes, John Henderson, Matt Hibbing, Vince Hutchings, Travis Johnston, David Karol, Geoff Layman, Gabe Lenz, Samantha Luks, Nate Monroe, Steve Nicholson, David Nickerson, Phil Rocco, Eric Schickler, Jas Sekhon, Jessica Trounstine, Kim Twist, Rob Van Houweling, Christina Wolbrecht, and the anonymous reviewers, for their extraordinarily helpful comments on this project as it has taken shape. We also wish to thank participants in the Causal Inference Workshop and Research Workshop in American Politics at the University of California, Berkeley, the American Workshop at the University of Notre Dame’ Rooney Center, and fellow panelists and audience members at various academic conferences for their comments and suggestions. This work was funded by generous research support from the University of California, Merced. All studies were approved or deemed exempt by the appropriate institutional research ethics committees. Replication data and the online appendix are available on the Harvard Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TYD3EC.

Supplementary material

11109_2016_9375_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (376 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 377 kb)

References

  1. Ansolabehere, S. (2013). Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2012: Common content [Computer file]. Release 1: February.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S. (2015). Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2014: Common content [Computer file]. Release 1: February.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(3), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Banda, K. K. (2013). The dynamics of campaign issue agendas. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 13, 446–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banda, K. K. (2016). Issue ownership, issue positions, and candidate assessment. Political Communication, 33(4), 651–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barker, D. C., Lawrence, A. B., & Tavits, M. (2006). Partisanship and the dynamics of candidate centered politics in American presidential nominations. Electoral Studies, 25(3), 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartels, L. M. (2002). The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In A. King (Ed.), Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections (pp. 44–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from world war II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgida, E., & Brekke, N. (1981). The base rate fallacy in attribution and prediction. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. E. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 63–95). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Brasher, H. (2003). Capitalizing on contention: Issue agendas in US senate campaigns. Political Communication, 20(4), 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter (Unabridged ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, D. E., Green, J. C., & Layman, G. C. (2011). The party faithful: Partisan images, candidate religion, and the electoral impact of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carsey, T. M. (2009). Campaign dynamics: The race for governor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clifford, S. (2013). The moral presentation of self: Causes and consequences of perceptions of politicians’ character traits. Doctoral dissertation: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  19. Clifford, S. (2014). Linking issue stances and trait inferences: A theory of moral exemplification. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 698–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Damore, D. F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolan, K. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32(1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolan, K. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates what really matters? Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dolan, K., & Sanbonmatsu, K. (2011). Candidate gender and experimental political science. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Egan, P. F. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gardner, R. C. (1994). Stereotypes as consensual beliefs. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (pp. 1–31). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Goggin, S. N. (2016). Personal politicians: Biography and its role in the minds of voters. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  27. Goggin, S. N., Henderson, J. A., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2015). What goes with red and blue? Assessing partisan cognition through conjoint classification experiments. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene, S. (2000). The psychological sources of partisan-leaning independence. American Politics Research, 28(4), 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender, 7(2), 133–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henderson, J. H. (2013). Downs’ revenge: Elections, responsibility and the rise of congressional polarization. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  36. Holian, D. B. (2004). He’s stealing my issues! Clinton’s crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership. Political Behavior, 26(2), 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaplan, Noah, Park, David K., & Ridout, Travis N. (2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. King, D. C., & Matland, R. E. (2003). Sex and the grand old party an experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a republican candidate. American Politics Research, 31(6), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lenz, G. S. (2013). Follow the leader?: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (2009). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  43. Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(02), 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGraw, K. (2011). Candidate impressions and evaluations. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. McGraw, K. M., Fischle, M., Stenner, K., & Lodge, M. (1996). What’s in a word? Political Behavior, 18(3), 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Merolla, J. L., Ramos, J. M., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2007). Crisis, charisma, and consequences: Evidence from the 2004 US presidential election. Journal of Politics, 69(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Merolla, J. L., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2009). Democracy at risk: How terrorist threats affect the public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nicholson, S. P. (2005). Voting the agenda: Candidates, elections, and ballot propositions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (2012). Who’s the party of the people? Economic populism and the U.S. public’s beliefs about political parties. Political Behavior, 34(2), 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. D. (1976). The unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national elections. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  53. Peterson, D. A. M. (2005). Heterogeneity and certainty in candidate evaluations. Political Behavior, 27(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pope, J. C., & Woon, J. (2008). Measuring changes in American party reputations, 1939–2004. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 134–147.Google Scholar
  57. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rahn, W. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Breuning, M. (1994). Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riker, W. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sanbonmatsu, K. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sanbonmatsu, K., & Dolan, K. (2009). Do gender stereotypes transcend party? Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider, D. J. (2005). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Publication.Google Scholar
  63. Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sigelman, L., & Buell, E. H. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stubager, R., & Slothuus, R. (2013). What are the sources of political parties + issue ownership? Testing four explanations at the individual level. Political Behavior, 35(3), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Theodoridis, A. G. (2012). Party identity in political cognition. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  69. Theodoridis, A. G. (2013). Merced Cooperative Congressional Election Study module, 2012 University of California [Computer file].Google Scholar
  70. Theodoridis, A. G. (2015). Merced Cooperative Congressional Election Study module, 2014 University of California [Computer file].Google Scholar
  71. Theodoridis, A. G. (forthcoming). Me, myself, and (I), (D) or (R)? Partisan intensity through the lens of implicit identity. Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
  72. Therriault, A. (2015). Whose issue is it anyway? A new look at the meaning and measurement of issue ownership. British Journal of Political Science, 45, 929–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Uleman, J. S., & Saribay, S. A. (2012). Initial impressions of others. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 337–366). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Tresch, A. (2012). The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.University of California, MercedMercedUSA

Personalised recommendations