Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Median Voters’ Happiness Cycles in the United States Along the Nation’s Principal Political Fault Line

Applied Research in Quality of Life (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Data from the General Social Survey are used to examine the political polarization in the United States, by examining presidential periods from 1972 to 2018. Our findings indicate that there has been an increased correlation between party identification and ideological identification, resulting in a steady shift towards the extremes. Furthermore, we explore how subjective wellbeing plays a role in driving this polarization. American politics is polarized between happy conservative Republicans and unhappy liberal Democrats. Oscillating in the “happiness gap” between these extremes are median voters whose happiness, low on average, falls the longer in power the party of the opposing ideology. It is the rise and fall of median voters’ unhappiness that drives the regime change between the two major political parties in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. People sorting themselves in communities based on like-mindedness.

  2. We use subjective well-being and happiness interchangeably in this article.

  3. There are interesting subcultural variations. Podhoretz (2010) asks why American Jews “live rich but vote poor.” American Jews, despite their material success in America, vote predominantly for Democrats. Podhoretz says this is because the Democratic Party represents the closest counterparts to the forces on the left that favored Jewish emancipation in Europe. As a result, the American Jewish attitude towards Christian conservatives is most frequently one of contempt. There is a strong echo of the Menshevik Jews who fled to America, with a gradual attenuation of Marxism into social democracy and social democracy into the liberalism that has become the very essence of American Jewish culture.

  4. Few studies have explored the topic. Di Tella and MacCulloch 2005 found that people are happier when their chosen party is in power, while Flavin and Keane (2012) observed that SWB is related to turnover intentions. Goldman et al (2019), found that despair is associate with the county-level Trump vote swing in 2016, while a few studies have found that SWB is correlated with voting intention and outcome in Europe and the US (Herrin et al., 2018; Liberini, Redoano and Proto 2017; Ward 2020).

References

  • Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998). ‘Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.’ Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(02), 542–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G., & Majlesi, K. (2017). A note on the effect of rising trade exposure on the 2016 presidential election. Appendix to “Importing Political Polarization, 3139–83.

  • Bartels, L. M., & Zaller, J. (2001). Presidential vote models: A recount. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34(1), 9–20.

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachmentsas a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., & Benhabib, J. (1989). Chaos: Significance, mechanism, and economic applications. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(1), 77–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2005). Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, 121, 699–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B., & Cushing, R. (2008). The big sort: Migration, community, and politics in the United States of ‘those people’. Red, blue and purple America: The future of election demographics, 50–75.

  • Brooks, A. C. (2008). Gross national happiness: Why happiness matters for America–and how we can get more of It. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, A. C. (2007). The Left's Inequality Obsession. Wall Street Journal, A15.

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1980). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2005). Partisan social happiness. The Review of Economic Studies, 72(2), 367–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 120, 690–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enke, B. (2020). Moral values and voting. Journal of Political Economy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/708857

  • Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (2nd ed.). Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. A., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. The Journal of Politics, 70(02), 556–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160808050X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavin, P., & Keane, M. J. (2012). Life satisfaction and political participation: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2018). How unhappiness helped elect Trump. City Lab https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-29/austin-i-35-highway-expansion-moves-ahead-despite-climate-fears. Accessed 25 Oct 2023

  • Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ, 337, a2338.

  • Frey, C. B., Berger, T., & Chen, C. (2018). Political machinery: Did robots swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34, 418–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A. B., Shor, J. B., & Park, D. (2008). Red state, blue state, rich state, poor state: Why Americans vote the way they do. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, L., Lim, M. P., Chen, Q., Jin, P., Muennig, P., & Vagelos, A. (2019). Independentrelationship of changes in death rates with changes in U.S. presidential voting. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34, 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2022). Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid. The Atlantic, 11.

  • Herrin, J., Witters, D., Roy, B., Riley, C., Liu, D., & Krumholz, H. M. (2018). Population well-being and electoral shifts. PLoS ONE, 13, e0193401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: National differences in thinking and organizing. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. G. (2006). Public sector economics: The role of government in the American economy. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (2004). Partisan and ideological polarization in the California electorate. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4(1), 113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (2005). Polarized politics and the 2004 congressional and presidential elections. Political Science Quarterly, 120(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Manley, D., & Jones, K. (2016). Spatial polarization of presidential voting in the United States, 1992–2012: The “big sort” revisited. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(5), 1047–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, E. D., & Tropp, L. R. (2018). The racial and economic context of Trump support: Evidence for threat, identity, and contact effects in the 2016 Presidential Election. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R. E. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C. (1997). Religion and political behavior in the United States: The impact of beliefs, affiliations, and commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 288–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American PartyPolitics. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C., & Carmines, E. G. (1997). Cultural conflict in American Politics: Religious traditionalism, post-materialism, and U.S. political behavior. Journal of Politics, 59(3), 751–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and ‘“Conflict Extension”’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liberini, F., Redoano, M., & Proto, E. (2017). Happy voters. Journal of Public Economics, 146, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindaman, K., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2002). Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture wars. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marietta, M. (2012). A citizen’s guide to american ideology: Conservatism and liberalism in contemporary politics. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, S., Grofman, B., & Brunell, T. L. (2008). Cycles in American national electoral politics, 1854–2006: Statistical evidence and an explanatory model. American Political Science Review, 102(01), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D. (2008). A happiness gap: Doomacrats and Republigrins. Washington Post, 10–24.

  • Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2010). Religiosity and life satisfaction across nations. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. (1995). Social mobility and redistributive politics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 551–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podhoretz, N. (2010). Why are Jews Liberals? Vintage Books New York, USA.

  • Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1998). The dynamics of interest group evaluations of Congress. Public Choice, 97(3), 323–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2001). D-Nominate after 10 years: A comparative update to congress: A political-economic history of roll-call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, D. (2004). Presidentialism and accountability for the economy in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 425–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, A. M. (1939). Tides of American politics. Yale Review, 29(2), 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smelser, N. J., & Alexander, J. C. (Eds.). (1999). Diversity and its discontents: cultural conflict and common ground in contemporary American society. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, NJ.

  • Smith, E. R. (1980). The levels of conceptualization: False measures of ideological sophistication. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 685–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, J. A. (2015). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Marianai, M. D. (2003). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, S. V., & Perkins, J. M. (2010). Are Republicans healthier than Democrats? International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(3), 930–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. F. (1971). Social categorization and Intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., Funk, C., & Craighill, P. (2006). Are we happy yet? A Pew Research Center Social Trends Report. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2006/02/13/are-we-happy-yet/. Accessed 25 Oct 2023. 

  • Ward, G. (2020). Happiness and voting: Evidence from four decades of elections in Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 64(3), 504–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, G., De Neve, J. E., Ungar, L. H., & Eichstaedt, J. C. (2021). (Un) happiness and voting in US presidential elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J. K. (2003). The values divide. Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81(01), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road, GR 31, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA

    Brian J. L. Berry

  2. Austin W. Marxe School of Public and International Affairs, Baruch College, 135 East 22Nd Street, 422, New York, NY, 10010, USA

    Rubia R. Valente

  3. Department of Public Policy and Administration, Rutgers University – Camden, 311 North Fifth Street, Camden, NJ, 08102, USA

    Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn

Authors
  1. Brian J. L. Berry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rubia R. Valente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rubia R. Valente.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Distribution of GSS Respondents by Party and Political Ideology by Gender

Table

Table 6 Distribution of GSS responses 1972–1980, men
Full size table

6

Table

Table 7 Distribution of GSS responses 1972–80, women
Full size table

7

Table

Table 8 Distribution of GSS Responses 1980–92, Men
Full size table

8

Table

Table 9 Distribution of GSS responses 1980–92, women
Full size table

9

Table

Table 10 Distribution of GSS responses 1992–2000, men
Full size table

10

Table

Table 11 Distribution of GSS responses 1992–2000, women
Full size table

11

Table

Table 12 Distribution of GSS responses 2001–2008, men
Full size table

12

Table

Table 13 Distribution of GSS responses 2001–2008, women
Full size table

13

Table

Table 14 Distribution of GSS responses 2009–2016, men
Full size table

14

Table

Table 15 Distribution of GSS responses 2009–2016, women
Full size table

15

Table

Table 16 Distribution of GSS responses 2016–2018, men
Full size table

16

Table

Table 17 Distribution of GSS responses 2016–2018, women
Full size table

17

Robustness check:

Table

Table 18 Logit of liberals in A1 and conservatives in A2 (lumping moderates/independents with base case)
Full size table

18

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berry, B.J.L., Valente, R.R. & Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. Median Voters’ Happiness Cycles in the United States Along the Nation’s Principal Political Fault Line. Applied Research Quality Life (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10243-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10243-3

Keywords

search

Navigation