Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 23–51 | Cite as

Cross Pressure Scores: An Individual-Level Measure of Cumulative Partisan Pressures Arising from Social Group Memberships

Original Paper

Abstract

Early studies of voting behavior hypothesized that the degree to which an individual was “cross-pressured” might affect how she participates in politics. However, attention to this topic waned before returning in recent years, mainly within the narrower confines of social networks analysis. In an effort to encourage broader consideration of the role of cross-pressures in political behavior, we present a new approach to estimating cross-pressures that (1) is individual-specific, (2) reflects the cumulative cross-pressures faced by an individual from her many intersecting social strata and group memberships, irrespective of the mechanism by which those pressures are experienced, and (3) can be estimated using widely-available data in party systems of any size, thus making it easier to study the effect of cross-pressures cross-nationally and over time. We demonstrate that these estimates are robust to many estimation choices, correspond well to existing measures of cross-pressures, and are correlated with patterns of political engagement and participation predicted by extant theories.

Keywords

Cross pressures Social groups Partisanship Political participation Measurement Political behavior United States Poland 

Supplementary material

11109_2013_9222_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (370 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 369 kb)

References

  1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brader, T., & Tucker, J. A. (2008). Pathways to partisanship: Evidence from Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 24(3), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Converse, P. E., & Campbell, A. (1968). Political standards in secondary groups. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (3rd ed., pp. 199–211). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. Craig, S. C., & Martinez, M. D. (Eds.). (2005). Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (Eds.). (2000). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eveland, W. P, Jr, & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and ‘heterogeneity’ of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Horan, P. M. (1971). Social positions and political cross-pressures: A re-examination. American Sociological Review, 36(4), 650–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95.Google Scholar
  14. Huckfeldt, R., Ikeda, K., & Pappi, F. U. (2005). Patterns of disagreement in democratic politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jang, S.-J. (2009). Are diverse political networks always bad for participatory democracy? Indifference, alienation, and political disagreements. American Politics Research, 37(5), 879–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks: The structuralist perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19(3), 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Gaudet, H., & Berelson, B. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell Sloan and Pearce.Google Scholar
  20. Leighley, J. E. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Research, 18, 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markowski, R., & Tucker, J. A. (2010). Euroskepticism and the emergence of political parties in Poland. Party Politics, 16(4), 532–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McClurg, S. D. (2006a). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McClurg, S. D. (2006b). Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement, and political talk on electoral participation. Political Behavior, 28, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.Google Scholar
  27. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. (1976). The changing American voter. Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nir, L. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(4), 422–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powell, G. B, Jr. (1976). Political cleavage structure, cross-pressure processes, and partisanship: An empirical test of the theory. American Journal of Political Science, 20(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Journal of Communication, 56, 728–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shanks, J. M., & Miller, W. E. (1990). Policy direction and performance evaluation: Complementary explanations of the Reagan elections. British Journal of Political Science, 20(2), 143–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Treier, S., & Jackman, S. (2008). Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walsh, K. C. (2003). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoo, S.-J. (2010). Two types of neutrality: Ambivalence versus indifference and political participation. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163–177.Google Scholar
  35. Zuckerman, A. S. (2005a). Returning to the social logic of politics. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 3–20). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Zuckerman, A. S. (2005b). The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted Brader
    • 1
  • Joshua A. Tucker
    • 2
  • Andrew Therriault
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Political StudiesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Lightbox AnalyticsLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations