Abstract
The commitment of respondents to their answers to the National Election Studies party identification question is examined in a nationwide experiment using the traditional wording and two variant wordings. About two-thirds of the sample were found to be committed to their responses. Leaners and pure independents were particularly uncommitted. Committed independents were much closer to the classical image than those identified as independents by the traditional measure. Leaners are not entirely consistent either with the view that they are disguised partisans or with the view that they are mostly independent with a tendency to lean toward a party. Of particular theoretical importance were the one-fifth of the sample who, when given the chance, indicated that they did not think of themselves in either partisan or independent terms. We suggest that the standard question on party identification should be supplemented with periodic monitoring of the extent of nonconforming answers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramson, Paul, and Charles W. Ostrom (1991). Macropartisanship: An empirical reassessment.American Political Science Review. 85: 181–192.
Barnes, Samuel, M. Kent Jennings, Ronald Inglehart, and Barbara Farah (1988). Party identification and party closeness in comparative perspective.Political Behavior 10: 215–231.
Borrelli, Stephen, Brad Lockerbie, and Richard G. Niemi (1987). Why the Democrat-Republican partisanship gap varies from poll to poll.Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 115–119.
Converse, Philip E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In Edward R. Tufte, ed.,The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Craig, Stephen C. (1985). Partisanship, independence, and no preference: Another look at the measurement of party identification.American Journal of Political Science 29: 274–290.
Dennis, Jack (1988). Political independence in America, Part I: On being an independent partisan supporter.British Journal of Political Science 18: 77–109.
Flanigan, William H., Wendy M. Rahn, and Nancy H. Zingale (1989). Political Parties as Objects of Identification and Orientation. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Salt Lake City, March.
Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice L. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger (1986). The partisan affinities of independent “leaners.”British Journal of Political Science 16: 155–185.
Kenney, Patrick, and Tom Rice (1988). The evaporating independents.Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 231–239.
Kessel, John H. (1984).Presidential Parties. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Miller, Arthur H., and Martin P. Wattenberg (1983). Measuring party identification: Independent or no partisan preference.American Journal of Political Science 27: 106–121.
Petrocik, John (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification.Political Methodology 1: 31–47.
Stanga, John E., and James F. Sheffield (1987). The myth of zero partisanship: Attitudes toward American political parties, 1964–1984.American Journal of Political Science 31: 829–855.
Weisberg, Herbert F. (1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification.Political Behavior 2: 33–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niemi, R.G., Reed, D.R. & Weisberg, H.F. Partisan commitment: A research note. Polit Behav 13, 213–221 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992919
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992919