Advertisement

What Goes with Red and Blue? Mapping Partisan and Ideological Associations in the Minds of Voters

  • Stephen N. Goggin
  • John A. Henderson
  • Alexander G. TheodoridisEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

To what extent do voters grasp “what goes with what” among key political objects as they attempt to understand the choices they face at the ballot box? Is recognition of these associations limited to only the most informed citizens? We design a novel conjoint classification experiment that minimizes partisan boosting and allows for the relative comparison of attribute effect when mapping voter associative networks, the cluster of attributes linked to parties and ideological labels. We ask respondents to ‘guess’ the party or ideology of hypothetical candidates with fully randomized issue priorities and biographical details. There is remarkable agreement among both high- and low-knowledge voters in linking issues to each party and ideology, suggesting this minimalist form of associative competence is more widely held in the mass public than perhaps previously thought. We find less agreement about biographical traits, which appear to pose greater informational challenges for voters. Notably, nearly identical issue priorities and traits are associated with party and ideology, indicating these two dimensions are largely fused in the minds of today’s American voters.

Keywords

Partisanship Voter competence Experiment Ideology Survey methods Political sophistication 

Notes

Supplementary material

11109_2018_9525_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (244 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 243 KB)

References

  1. Abramowitz, Al I. (2011). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A. I. (2018). The great alignment: Race, party transformation, and the rise of Donald Trump. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981.Google Scholar
  5. Ansolabehere, S. (2015). Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2014: Common Content. [Computer File] Release 1: February 2015.Google Scholar
  6. Ansolabehere, S., & Jones, P. E. (2010). Constituents’ responses to congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 583–597.Google Scholar
  7. Arceneaux, K. (2009). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.Google Scholar
  8. Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels: Partisan news in an age of choice. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.Google Scholar
  11. Berinsky, A. J. (2015). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262.Google Scholar
  12. Bishop, B. (2008). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  13. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.Google Scholar
  14. Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1061–1078.Google Scholar
  15. Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 519–578.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 95–126.Google Scholar
  18. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Critical Review, 18(1), 1–74.Google Scholar
  19. Coronel, J. C., Federmeier, K. D., & Gonsalves, B. D. (2014). Event-eelated potential evidence suggesting voters remember political events that never happened. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(3), 358–366.Google Scholar
  20. Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2018). “Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments.” Political Analysis.Google Scholar
  21. Damore, D. F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 391–397.Google Scholar
  22. Dancey, L., & Sheagley, G. (2013). Heuristics behaving badly: Party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 312–325.Google Scholar
  23. Dancey, L., & Sheagley, G. (2016). Inferences made easy: Partisan voting in congress, voter knowledge, and senator approval. American Politics Research, 44, 844–874.Google Scholar
  24. Egan, P. J. (2013). Partisan priorities: How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Feldman, S., & Conover, P. J. (1983). Candidates, issues, and voters: The role of inference in political perception. Journal of Politics, 45, 810–839.Google Scholar
  26. Fiorina, M. P. (1980). The decline of collective responsibility in American politics. Daedalus, 109(3), 25–45.Google Scholar
  27. Freeder Sean, L., Gabriel, S., & Turney, S. (2019). The importance of knowing ’What Goes With What’: Reinterpreting the evidence on attitude stability. Journal of Politics, 81(1), 274–290.Google Scholar
  28. Goggin, S. N. (2016). Personal politicians: Biography and its role in the minds of voters. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  29. Goggin, S., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2018). Seeing red (or blue): How party identity colors political cognition. The Forum, 16(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
  30. Goggin, S. N., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2017). Disputed ownership: Parties, issues, and traits in the minds of voters. Political Behavior, 39, 675–702.Google Scholar
  31. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548.Google Scholar
  32. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  33. Hartman, T. K., & Newmark, A. J. (2012). Motivated reasoning, political sophistication, and associations between President Obama and Islam. Political Science and Politics, 45(3), 449–455.Google Scholar
  34. Hayes, D. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 908–923.Google Scholar
  35. Hayes, D. (2010). Trait voting in US senate elections. American Politics Research, 38(6), 1102–1129.Google Scholar
  36. Heit, E., & Nicholson, S. P. (2016). Missing the Party: Political categorization and reasoning in the absence of party labels. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(3), 697–714.Google Scholar
  37. Henderson, J.A. (2015). 2014 Yale University Cooperative Congressional Election Study Module. [Computer File].Google Scholar
  38. Henderson, J.A. (2018). Blind guessing? voter competence about Partisan messaging. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  39. Henderson, J. A., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2017). Seeing spots: An experimental examination of voter appetite for partisan and negative campaign ads. Political Behavior, 40(4), 965–987.Google Scholar
  40. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2018). Prius or pickup?: How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Klar, S. (2013). The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. The Journal of Politics, 75(4), 1108–1124.Google Scholar
  45. Klar, S. (2014). A multidimensional study of ideological preferences and priorities among the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(S1), 344–359.Google Scholar
  46. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.Google Scholar
  47. Lawless, J. L., & Pearson, K. (2008). The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Reevaluating the conventional wisdom. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
  48. Lee, F. E. (2009). Beyond ideology: Politics, principles, and partisanship in the U.S. senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.Google Scholar
  51. Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. The American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–520.Google Scholar
  52. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Malka, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23(2), 156–188.Google Scholar
  54. Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.Google Scholar
  55. Mason, L. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351–377.Google Scholar
  56. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mason, L., & Wronski, J. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 257–277.Google Scholar
  58. Miratrix, L. W., Sekhon, J. S., Theodoridis, A. G., & Campos, L. F. (2018). Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(3), 275–291.Google Scholar
  59. Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.Google Scholar
  60. Perrig, W. J. (2001). Implicit memory, cognitive psychology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 7241–7245). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  61. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.Google Scholar
  62. Preece, J. R., & Stoddard, O. B. (2015). Does the message matter? A field experiment on political party recruitment. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  63. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.Google Scholar
  64. Rothschild, J.E., Howat, A.J., Shafranek, R.M., & Busby, E.C. (2018). Pigeonholing partisans: Stereotypes of party supporters and partisan polarization. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
  65. Sides, J. (2006). The Origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 407.Google Scholar
  66. Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Snyder, Jr., J. M., & Ting, M. M. (2002). An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 90–110.Google Scholar
  68. Theodoridis, A.G. (2012). Party identity in political cognition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  69. Theodoridis, A. G. (2013). Implicit political identity. Political Science and Politics, 46(3), 545–549.Google Scholar
  70. Theodoridis, A.G. (2015). 2014 University of California, Merced Cooperative Congressional Election Study Module. [Computer File].Google Scholar
  71. Theodoridis, A. G. (2017). Me, myself, and (I),(D), or (R)? Partisanship and political cognition through the lens of implicit identity. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1253–1267.Google Scholar
  72. Thomsen, D. M. (2015). Why so few (republican) women? Explaining the partisan imbalance of women in the US congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 295–323.Google Scholar
  73. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Tresch, A. (2012). The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  74. Winter, N. J. G. (2010). Masculine republicans and feminine democrats: Gender and americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior, 32(4), 587–618.Google Scholar
  75. Woon, J., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Made in congress? Testing the electoral implications of party ideological brand names. Journal of Politics, 70(3), 823–836.Google Scholar
  76. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen N. Goggin
    • 1
  • John A. Henderson
    • 2
  • Alexander G. Theodoridis
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceInstitution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaMercedUSA

Personalised recommendations