Abstract
The standard treatment of party identification makes several untested assumptions, especially that citizens can identify with only a single party and that political independence is just the opposite of partisanship. A more general possibility is that several attitudes must be taken into account: attitudes toward the Republican party, the Democratic party, political independence, and political parties generally. A literal reading of the usual party identification is consistent with this multidimensional interpretation. Citizen ratings of the two parties turn out to be virtually uncorrelated, as are ratings of independence and political parties, confirming this multidimensional view. Strength of identification and strength of independence are separate in this model, which explains some of the anomalies in the current literature, including intransitivities in relationships with other variables and weak correlations involving independence. New questions included in the 1980 CPS National Election Study support this interpretation and provide a new understanding of political independence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Belknap, George, and Angus Campbell (1952). “Political Party Identification and Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy.”Public Opinion Quarterly 15: 601–623.
Brody, Richard A. (1977). “Stability and Change in Party Identification: Presidential to Off-years.” Paper presented at the 1977 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Budge, Ian, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie (1976).Party Identification and Beyond. London: Wiley.
Burnham, Walter Dean (1970).Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: Norton.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes (1966).Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, Angus, and Howard C. Cooper (1956).Group Differences in Attitudes and Votes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.
Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller (1954).The Voter Decides. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson.
Converse, Philip E. (1966). “The Concept of a Normal Vote.” In Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes (eds.),Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.
Converse, Philip E. (1975) “Public Opinion and Voting Behavior.” In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.),Handbook of Political Science, vol. 4. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Converse, Philip E. (1976).The Dynamics of Party Support. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Coombs, Clyde H. (1964).A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.
Crewe, Ivor (1976). “Party Identification Theory and Political Change in Britain.” In Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie (eds.),Party Identification and Beyond. London: Wiley.
Fiorina, Morris P. (1977). “An Outline for a Model of Party Choice.”American Journal of Political Science 21: 601–626.
Katz, Richard S. (1979). “The Dimensionality of Party Identification.”Comparative Politics, 11: 147–163.
Keith, Bruce E.,et al., (1977). “The myth of the Independent Voter.” Paper presented at the 1977 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Knoke, David (1976).Change and Continuity in American Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ladd, Everett C., Jr., and Charles D. Hadley (1978).Transformations of the American Party System, 2nd ed. New York: Norton.
Maggiotto, Michael A., and James E. Piereson (1977). “Partisan Identification and Electoral Choice: the Hostility Hypothesis.”American Journal of Political Science 21: 745–67.
McKelvey, Richard D., and Peter C. Ordeshook (1972). “A General Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” In James F. Herndon and Joseph L. Bernd (eds.),Mathematical Applications in Political Science, VI. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.
Miller, Arthur H., and Warren E. Miller (1977). “Partisanship and Performance: ‘Rational’ Choice in the 1976 Presidential Election.” Paper presented at the 1977 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Miller, Warren E. (1976). “The Cross-national Use of Party Identification as a Stimulus to Political Inquiry.” In Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie (eds.),Party Identification and Beyond. London: Wiley.
Nie, Norman H., Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik (1976).The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg (1976).Controversies in American Voting Behavior. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Petrocik, John R. (1974). “An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification.”Political Methodology 1: 31–47.
Pomper, Gerald M. (1975).Voters' Choice. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Riker, William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook (1973).An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Shively, W. Phillips (1977). “Information Costs and the Partisan Life Cycle.” Paper presented at the 1977 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
Van Wingen, John R., and David C. Valentine (1979). “Biases in the Partisan Identification Index as a Measure of partisanship.” Paper presented at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weisberg, H.F. A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification. Polit Behav 2, 33–60 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989755
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989755