While groups have been central to thinking about partisan identity and choices, there has been surprisingly little attention paid to the role of perceptions of the group composition of the parties. We explore this critical linking information in the context of religious groups, some of the chief pivots around which the parties have been sorting. Using three national samples, we show that perceptions of the religious group composition of the parties are often biased—evangelicals overestimate the presence of evangelicals within the Republican Party and the irreligious within the Democratic Party. The key finding is that individuals are far more likely to identify with the party in which they believe their group is well represented—a finding which clarifies the role of party image shifts in constructing partisanship, the limits of the culture war motif, and the importance of social perception in shaping beliefs about party representation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
For example, Doherty et al. (2018) document religious majorities in both parties.
Our survey measures of perceptions about the religious composition of the parties are similar to those fielded by Ahler and Sood (2018), though the projects developed independently and more or less contemporaneously.
See Chapter 7 where religious group memberships are discussed in conjunction with changes in partisanship as groups respond to social forces and see Chapter 12, which assesses the independent effects of group membership, but also discusses group membership as a determinant of party identification, e.g. Campbell et al. (1960, p. 328).
More narrowly, The American Voter focuses on longitudinal variation in partisanship for groups and also on variation across groups in partisanship. Our approach extends this work into a new aspect of partisan variation—within groups at one point in time. Our approach anticipates variation among members of a group with differing perceptions regarding how well their group is represented in each party. On one hand, we anticipate these perceptions are connected to the social forces examined in The American Voter and longitudinal variation in each party’s group-based composition. On the other hand, our work also reveals that it is important to measure individuals’ beliefs about the composition of the parties because their beliefs vary widely around more objective assessments of the actual composition of the parties.
Please see the Online Appendix Table A0 for the demographics of the samples. The model results are nearly identical with and without weights applied.
For religious identification, we focus on white Evangelical Christians and religious nones. We categorize evangelicals using the self-identification approach, where Protestants or other Christians affirm a “born again or evangelical” identity. Born-again Catholics are excluded. While affiliation with evangelical denominations is often preferred (Steensland et al. 2000; Shelton 2018), analyses suggest that the self-identification approach produces similar results (Lewis and de Bernardo 2010; Burge and Lewis 2018; Smith et al. 2018). We categorize religious nones as people who claim their present religion to be atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.
Similarly, Valentino and Khirkov (2017) reported that over half of the respondents in their sample associated evangelical Christians with the Republican Party, while 37.8% of their respondents associated seculars with the Democratic Party.
The American Voter considers several groups that are either clearly “joined” prior to party identification (e.g. race) or that form independent of party (e.g. unions and religious groups). They write, “[T]hese groups stand at one remove from the political order. Their reason for existence is not expressly political” (Campbell et al. 1960, p. 295).
We also note that we wouldn’t even expect a general sample effect for the unfolded measure of partisanship because, as shown above, individuals use perceptions as both positive and negative cues (which would cancel out in a general sample, but should work in similar ways among members of a particular group such as evangelicals).
Ahler and Sood conclude that PCOPs “are genuine and party specific, not artifacts of expressive responding, innumeracy, or ignorance of base rates” (2018, p. 964).
The statement was effectively randomized along the lines of gender, age, education, and race (white vs non-white). Still, since the p values were not equal to 1 (they ranged from .53 to .84), we included these demographic variables as controls in OLS models that underlie the results in Fig. 6.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 175–187.
Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981.
Axelrod, R. (1972). Where the votes come from: An analysis of electoral coalitions, 1952–1968. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 11–20.
Baylor, C. (2017). First to the party: The group origins of party transformation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bentley, A. F. (1908). The process of government: A study of social pressures. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Black, A. (2016). Evangelicals, politics, and public policy: Lessons from the past, prospects for the future. In C. G. Brown & M. Silkm (Eds.), The future of evangelicalism in America (pp. 124–157). New York: Columbia University Press.
Brewer, M. D. (2009). Party images in the American electorate. New York: Routledge.
Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (1997). Social cleavages and political alignments: U.S. presidential elections, 1960 to 1992. American Sociological Review, 62(6), 937–946.
Brown, R. D. (1995). Party Cleavages and Welfare Effort in the American States. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 23–33.
Burge, R. P., & Lewis, A. R. (2018). Measuring evangelicals: Practical considerations for social scientists. Politics & Religion, 11(4), 745–759.
Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, D. E., Green, J. C., & Layman, G. C. (2011). The party faithful: Partisan images, candidate religion, and the electoral impact of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 42–58.
Carmines, E. (1991). The logic of party alignments. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(1), 65–80.
Carmines, E. G., & Stanley, H. W. (1992). The transformation of the new deal party system: social groups, political ideology, and changing partisanship among northern whites. Political Behavior, 14(3), 213–237.
Claassen, R. (2015). Godless democrats and pious republicans? Party activists, party capture, and the “God Gap”. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature and belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
Converse, P. E. (1966). Religion and politics: The 1960 election. In A. Campbell, P. Converse, W. Miller, & D. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the political order. New York: Wiley.
Djupe, P. A. (2011). Political pluralism and the information search: Determinants of group opinionation. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 68–81.
Djupe, P. A., & Lewis, A. R. (2015). Solidarity and discord of pluralism: How the social context affects interest group learning and belonging. American Politics Research, 43(3), 394–424.
Djupe, P. A., & Neiheisel, J. R. (2008). Christian right horticulture: Grassroots support in a republican primary campaign. Politics & Religion, 1(1), 55–84.
Djupe, P. A., Neiheisel, J. R., & Sokhey, A. E. (2018). Reconsidering the role of politics in leaving religion: The importance of affiliation. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 161–175.
Doherty, C., Kiley, J., & O’Hea, O. (2018). Wide gender gap, growing educational divide in voters’ party identification. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Edgell, P., Gertais, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American Society. American Sociological Review, 71, 211–234.
Elder, C. D., & Cobb, R. W. (1983). The political uses of symbols. New York: Longman.
Erikson, R. S., Lancaster, T. D., & Romero, D. W. (1989). Group components of the presidential vote, 1952–1984. Journal of Politics, 51(2), 337–346.
Green, J. C. (2007). The faith factor: How religion influences American elections. Westport: Praeger.
Green, J. C. (2010a). Gauging the god gap: Religion and voting in U.S. presidential elections. In J. E. Leighley (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American elections and political behavior (pp. 433–448). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, J. C. (2010b). Religious diversity and American democracy: A view from the polls. In A. Wolfe & I. Katznelson (Eds.), Religion and democracy in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and interest group democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, S. B. (2011). Religion and reaction: The secular political challenge to the religious right. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Hoge, D. R. (1988). Why Catholics drop out. In D. G. Bromley (Ed.), Falling from the faith: Causes and consequences of religious apostasy. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). No religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 165–190.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.
Jones, R. P. (2016). The end of White Christian America. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
Kalmoe, N. P. (2019). Speaking of parties…dueling views of a canonical measure of sophistication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 68–90.
Karol, D. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kinder, D. R., Adams, G. S., & Gronke, P. W. (1989). Economics and politics in the 1984 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 491–515.
Layman, G. C. (1997). Religion and political behavior in the United States: The impact of beliefs, affiliation, and commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 288–316.
Layman, G. C. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Layman, G. C. (2010). Religion and party activists: A ‘Perfect Storm’ of polarization or a recipe for pragmatism? In A. Wolfe & I. Katznelson (Eds.), Religion and democracy in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press and Russell Sage.
Layman, G. C., & Brockway, M. (2018). Evangelical activists in the GOP: Still the life of the party? In P. A. Djupe & R. L. Claassen (Eds.), The evangelical crackup? The future of the evangelical-republican coalition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Layman, G. C., & Green, J. C. (2006). Wars and rumours of wars: The contexts of cultural conflict in American political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 61–89.
Leege, D., Wald, K. D., Krueger, B. S., & Mueller, P. D. (2002). The politics of cultural differences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lewis, A. R. (2017). The rights turn in conservative christian politics: How abortion transformed the culture wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, A. R., & De Bernardo, D. H. (2010). Belonging without belonging: Utilizing evangelical self-identification to analyze political attitudes and preferences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 112–126.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Jacoby, W. G., Norpoth, H., & Weisberg, H. F. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. New York: Basic Books.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mason, L., & Wronski, J. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39(51), 257–277.
Matthews, D. R., & Prothro, J. W. (1964). Southern images of political parties: An analysis of White and Negro attitudes. Journal of Politics, 26(1), 82–111.
Miller, A. H., & Wlezien, C. (1993). The social group dynamics of partisan evaluations. Electoral Studies, 12(1), 5–22.
Miller, A. H., Wlezien, C., & Hildreth, A. (1991). A reference group theory of partisan coalitions. Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1134–1149.
Olson, L. R., & Green, J. C. (2006). The religion gap. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(3), 455–459.
Olson, L. R., & Warber, A. L. (2008). Belonging, behaving, and believing: Assessing the role of religion on presidential approval. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 192–204.
Patrikios, S. (2008). American republican religion? Disentangling the causal link between religion and politics in the US. Political Behavior, 30, 367–389.
Philpot, T. S. (2007). Race, republicans, and the return of the party of Lincoln. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Putnam, R., & Campbell, D. (2010). American Grace. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social Identity Complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.
Rothschild, J. E., Howat, A. J., Shafranek, R. M., & Busby, E. C. (2018). Pigeonholing partisans: Stereotypes of party supporters and partisan polarization. Political Behavior, 41(2), 423–443.
Shelton, J. E. (2018). Is RELTRAD still the gold standard? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(4), 817–826.
Smidt, C. E., Den Dulk, K. R., Froehle, B. T., Penning, J. M., Monsma, S. V., & Koopman, D. L. (2010). The disappearing god gap? Religion in the 2008 presidential election. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, G. A., Sciupac, E. P., Gecewicz, C., & Hackett, C. (2018). Comparing the RELTRAD and born-again/evangelical self-identification approaches to measuring American protestantism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 57(4), 830–847.
Stanley, H. W., Bianco, W. T., & Niemi, R. G. (1986). Partisanship and group support over time: A multivariate analysis. American Political Science Review, 80(3), 969–976.
Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291–318.
Trilling, R. J. (1976). Party image and electoral behavior. New York: Wiley.
Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process: Public interests and public opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Valentino, N. & Khirkov, K. (2017). Blue is black and red is white? Affective polarization and the racialized schemas of U.S. Party Coalitions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the midwest political science association.
Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wlezien, C., & Miller, A. H. (1997). Social groups and political judgments. Social Science Quarterly, 78(3), 625–640.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Claassen, R.L., Djupe, P.A., Lewis, A.R. et al. Which Party Represents My Group? The Group Foundations of Partisan Choice and Polarization. Polit Behav (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09565-6
- Culture war
- God gap
- Group identity
- Party identification
- Party composition