Skip to main content
Log in

Party identification and party closeness in comparative perspective

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present analysis uses data from 1974 and 1981 U. S. cross sections, which incorporate a panel, to compare the standard NES measure of party identification (ID) with a measure of partisanship derived from a party closeness question widely employed in cross-national research. Important features of the two scales are examined by transforming the closeness measure into a scale of very close, fairly close, not very close, and no preference corresponding to the seven-point ID scale. The scales are highly correlated and are similar in their reliability. More than 75% of the “independents” in the ID scale choose a party in the closeness version, and over half of these select the “fairly close” category. Respondents do not volunteer that they are independents when that alternative is not stated in the question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asher, Herbert. (1974). Some consequences of measurement error in survey data.American Journal of Political Science 18: 469–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Samuel H. (1977).Representation in Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Samuel H., Max Kaase, et al. (1979).Political Action. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, Ralph W., and Milton Lodge. (1980). The meaning of party labels.Political Behavior 2: 287–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budge, Ian, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie, eds. (1976).Party Identification and Beyond. London: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, David, and Donald Stokes. (1969).Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, James E. (1984). The intervals of party identification: Rescaling the partisan categories. Paper prepared for the 1984 Annual Convention of the APSA, Washington, D.C.

  • Converse, Philip. (1969). Of time and partisan stability.Comparative Political Studies 2: 139–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, Philip, and Gregory Markus. (1979). ‘Plus ca change ...’: The new CPS election study panel.American Political Science Review 73: 2–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, Philip, and Roy Pierce. (1986).Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Stephen C. (1985). Partisanship, independence, and no-preference: Another look at the measurement of party identification.American Journal of Political Science 29: 274–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Jack. (1981a). On being an independent partisan supporter. Paper presented at the 1981 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Cincinnati, OH.

  • Dennis, Jack. (1981b). Some properties of partisanship. Paper presented at the 1981 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York City.

  • Dennis, Jack. (1982). New measures of partisanship in models of voting. Paper presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, WI.

  • Howell, Susan E. (1980). The behavioral component of changing partisanship.American Politics Quarterly 8: 279–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. Kent, Klaus R. Allerback, and Leopold Rosenmayr. (1979). Generations and families: General orientations. In Samuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase, et al. (eds.),Political Action, pp. 449–486. Berverly Hill: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. Kent, and Gregory Markus. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: Results from the three-wave political socialization panel study.American Political Science Review 78: 1000–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard Niemi. (1974).The Political Character of Adolescents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard Niemi. (1981).Generations and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaase, Max. (1976). Party identification and voting behavior in the West-German election of 1969. In Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie (eds.),Party Identification and Beyond, pp. 91–115. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamieniecki, Sheldon. (1985).Party Identification, Political Behavior, and the American Electorate. Boulder, CO: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. (1986). Further evidence on the partisan affinities of independent “leaners.”British Journal of Political Science 16: 155–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, Gregory B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year; A report on the 1980 NES panel study.American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Arthur H., and Martin P. Wattenberg. (1983). Measuring party identification: Independent or no partisan preference?American Journal of Political Science 27: 106–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Warren E., and Philip C. Stouthard. (1975). Confessional attachment and electoral behavior in the Netherlands.European Journal of Political Research 3: 219–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norpoth, Helmut, and Jerrold Rusk. (1982). Partisan dealignment in the American electorate: Itemizing the deductions since 1964.American Political Science Review 76: 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik, John. (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification.Political Methodology 1: 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. (1981).Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shively, W. Phillips. (1980). The nature of party identification: A review of recent developments. In John C. Pierce and John L. Sullivan (eds.),The Electorate Reconsidered, pp. 219–236. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, David C., and John R. van Wingen. (1980). Partisanship, independence, and the partisan identification question.American Politics Quarterly 8: 165–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, Herbert F. (1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification.Political Behavior 2: 33–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, Herbert F. (1983). A new scale of partisanship.Political Behavior 5: 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barnes, S.H., Jennings, M.K., Inglehart, R. et al. Party identification and party closeness in comparative perspective. Polit Behav 10, 215–231 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990552

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990552

Keywords

Navigation