The polarization of the political and social environment over the past four decades has provided citizens with clearer cues about how their core political predispositions (e.g., group interests, core values, and party identification) relate to their issue opinions. A robust and ongoing scholarly debate has involved the different ways in which the more polarized environment affects mass opinion. Using heteroskedastic regression, this paper examines the effect of the increasingly polarized environment on the variability of citizens’ policy opinions. We find that citizens today base their policy preferences more closely upon their core political predispositions than in the past. In addition, the predicted error variances also allow us to directly compare two types of mass polarization—issue distance versus issue consistency—to determine the independent effects each has on changes in the distribution of mass opinion.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Data available online: <http://pooleandrosenthal.com/party_unity.htm>.
On the other hand, using the error variance means that issue consistency is defined relative to the demographic and party identification variables included in the mean equation. Any variables omitted from the mean equation that have become more or less correlated with the issue response would cause changes in the size of the error variance over time. Thus, “issue consistency” in this case means issue opinions that are consistent with the demographic and party identification variables included in the mean equation.
The Cumulative File only included self-placement on the 7-point liberal-conservative scale for the 2002 midterm elections and does not include the 2006 midterm elections.
The regh STATA program created by Jeroen Weesie (Utrecht University) was used to estimate the linear heteroskedastic regression models.
Given that the dependent variables are categorical, our estimation approach implicitly assumes that the ANES issue scales are good approximations of continuous variables, i.e., adjacent positions on those scales can be treated as equidistant from each other in terms of the latent continuous utility or value comparison underlying the discrete survey responses. For the 7-point scales, we have no theoretical reason to doubt the validity of this assumption and imposing it if true makes our estimates more powerful (i.e., more likely to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship when it is false). For the 4-point abortion scale, however, there is good reason to question whether the positions reliably approximate a continuum since the middle choices of allowing abortion in circumstances of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother seem closer to each other than to their adjacent pro-choice/life response. As a robustness check, we re-estimated the Abortion model using heteroskedastic ordered probit and found no differences in our substantive results. For completeness sake, we did the same for the other issue models and all of those re-estimations produced findings consistent with the heteroskedastic regression results reported below. A summary of this auxiliary analysis is available from the authors upon request.
We also include two sets of interaction terms in the mean equation. First, church attendance is interacted with dummy variables for Protestant and Catholic. Second, upper income blacks might resent having their success attributed to policies such as government aid toward minorities, so the mean equation includes an interaction between family income and the dummy variable for black.
Past studies have used Poole and Rosenthal’s DW-NOMINATE ideology scores to estimate the Euclidean distance between the two party caucuses as a measure of party polarization (i.e., Hetherington 2001). Ideological distance is highly correlated with the party unity scores (r = .945) and the use of different measures does not produce substantially different results.
Results for the larger mean equations are available from the authors upon request.
One possible explanation for the contrary finding for Abortion is that our mean equation does not include an evangelical variable. More specifically, the temporal increase in the error variance could be due to omitting the distinction between evangelical and traditional Christians if this distinction has become more important over time. However, our mean equation does include church attendance and party identification variables, which should pick up some (if not most) of the effect of this distinction, thereby limiting any potential bias and making it an incomplete explanation at best. More generally, the inclusion of a large number of demographic variables in the model should likewise serve to limit the possible effects of omitted variables on our results.
To calculate Cohen’s d, the variances were converted to standard deviations.
We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.
Levendusky (2010), for instance, argues that elite cues help citizens to map their party identification issue positions and can perhaps lead to better vote choices (pp. 125–126).
Abramowitz, A. I. (2006). Comment: Disconnected or joined at the hip. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue Nation? Volume One. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Abramowitz, A. L., & Saunders, K. L. (2005). Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of polarization in America. The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 2, 1–22.
Abramowitz, A. L., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70, 542–555.
Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718–737.
Aldrich, J. H., Berger, M. M., & Rohde, D. W. (2002). The historical variability in conditional party government, 1877–1986. In D. W. Brady & M. D. McCubbins (Eds.), Party, process, and political change in congress, Volume 1: New perspective on the history of congress (Vol. 2, pp. 17–35). Stanford University Press: Stanford.
Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92, 545–558.
Althaus, S. L. (2003). Collective preferences in democratic politics: Opinion surveys and the will of the people. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alvarez, R. M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence toward abortion policy: A heteroskedastic probit method for assessing conflicting values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055–1082.
Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial politics? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345–374.
Bafumi, J., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2009). A new partisan voter. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1–24.
Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194–230.
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brewer, M. D. (2005). The rise of partisanship and the expansion of partisan conflict within the American electorate. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 219–229.
Calhoun, Craig. (1988). Populist politics, communications media and large scale societal integration. Sociological Theory, 6, 219–241.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 78–91.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1986). The structure and sequence of issue evolution. American Political Science Review, 80, 901–920.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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, 464–477.
Carson, J. L., Crespin, M. H., Finocchiaro, C. J., & Rohde, D. W. (2007). Redistricting and party polarization in the U.S. house of representatives. American Politics Research, 35, 878–904.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conover, P. J. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18, 51–96.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102, 690–755.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.
Evans, J. H., Bryson, B., & DiMaggio, P. (2001). Opinion polarization: Important contributions, necessary limitations. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 944–959.
Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Longman.
Franklin, C. H. (1991). Eschewing obfuscation? Campaign and the perception of U.S. senate incumbents. American Political Science Review, 85, 1193–1214.
Frey, W. H. (1995). The new geographic of population shifts: Trend toward balkanization. In R. Farly (Ed.), The state of the Union: America in the 1990’s (Vol. 2, pp. 271–336). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Galston, W. A., & Nivola, P. S. (2006). Delineating the problem. In P. S. Nivola, D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and Blue Nation? (Vol. 1, pp. 1–48). Baltimore: Brookings Institutional Press.
Green, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147–167.
Harrison, R. J., & Bennett, C. (1995). Racial and ethnic diversity. In R. Farley (Ed.), State of the Union: America in the 1990’s (Vol. 2, pp. 156–165). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Harvey, A. C. (1976). Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 44, 461–465.
Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619–631.
Hetherington, M. J. (2009). Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 413–448.
Huckfeld, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.
Issacharoff, S. (2002). Gerrymandering and political cartels. Harvard Law Review, 116, 620–630.
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.
Iyengar, S., & Morin, R. (2006). Mind the gap: Differences in public knowledge about domestic and overseas events. Washington Post, July 5, 2006.
Jacobson, G. C. (2004). The politics of congressional elections (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Jacobson, G. C. (2006). Comment: Disconnected or joined at the hip? In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.). Red and blue Nation? Volume One. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Keele, L., & Park, D. K. (2006). Difficult choices: An evaluation of heterogenous choice models. Paper presented at the 2004 Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL September 2–5.
Layman, G. C. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior, 24, 199–236.
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan,and Pearce.
Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levendusky, M. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32, 111–131.
Levy, F. (1995). Incomes and income inequality. In R. Farley (Ed.), State of the Union: America in the 1990’s (Vol. 1, pp. 1–58). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53, 666–680.
McInturff, B. (2001). One Nation, fairly divisible, under God. Economist, January 20, 2001, p. 22.
Miller, W. E., & Jennings, M. Kent. (1986). Parties in transition: A longitudinal study of party elites and party supporters. New York: Sage.
Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95, 97–114.
Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rohde, D. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanley, H. W., Bianco, W. T., & Niemi, R. G. (1986). Partisanship and group support over time: A multivariate analysis. American Political Science Review, 80, 969–976.
Stone, W. J., Rapoport, R. B., & Abramowitz, A. I. (1990). The reagan revolution and party polarization in the 1980s. In L. Sandy Maisel (Ed.), The parties respond. Bould, CO: Westview Press.
Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Mariani, M. D. (2003). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
White, J. K. (2003). The values divide. New Jersey: Chatham House.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
We would like to thank John Bruce and Bob Brown for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper as well as the helpful comments of the anonymous reviewers.
About this article
Cite this article
Garner, A., Palmer, H. Polarization and Issue Consistency Over Time. Polit Behav 33, 225–246 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9136-7
- Partisan Sorting
- Attitude consistency
- Heteroskedastic regression