Pigeonholing Partisans: Stereotypes of Party Supporters and Partisan Polarization
What comes to mind when people think about rank-and-file party supporters? What stereotypes do people hold regarding ordinary partisans, and are these views politically consequential? We utilize open-ended survey items and structural topic modeling to document stereotypes about rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans. Many subjects report stereotypes consistent with the parties’ actual composition, but individual differences in political knowledge, interest, and partisan affiliation predict their specific content. Respondents varied in their tendency to characterize partisans in terms of group memberships, issue preferences, or individual traits, lending support to both ideological and identity-based conceptions of partisanship. Most importantly, we show that partisan stereotype content is politically significant: individuals who think of partisans in a predominantly trait-based manner—that is, in a way consistent with partisanship as a social identity—display dramatically higher levels of both affective and ideological polarization.
KeywordsPartisanship Political parties Partisan polarization Social identity Stereotypes
We are grateful to Jamie Druckman, Doug Ahler, participants in the Druckman political science research lab, participants in the Thursday group at Brigham Young University, three anonymous reviewers, and discussants at MPSA and WPSA for insightful feedback and suggestions. We also thank Brandon Stewart and Matthew Lacombe for their helpful methodological advice. All errors are our own. Financial support for this research came from the Political Science Department at Northwestern University. This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Northwestern University. The authors contributed equally to this work. Data and replication code for the analyses presented in this paper can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/U23L09.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Ahler, D., & Sood, G. (Forthcoming). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics. Google Scholar
- Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the ‘narrow data base’. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–56). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relationships and group processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Key, V. O. (1964). Parties, politics, and pressure groups (5th ed.). New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
- Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.Google Scholar
- Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2017). stm: R package for Structural Topic Models, version 1.2.1. http://www.structuraltopicmodel.com.
- Sherman, J. W., Kruschke, J. K., Sherman, S. J., Percy, E. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Conrey, F. R. (2009). Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Theodoridis, A.G. (2017). Me, myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and political cognition through the lens of implicit identity. Journal of Politics. Google Scholar
- Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar