Abstract
The article proposes an empirically based reflection on how to measure party identification cross nationally, using data from the 1997 Canadian Election Study, the 1997 British Election Study, and the 1996 American National Election Study. These studies included both traditional national questions and a new common one, which allows for an assessment of the effects of question wording on the distribution and correlates of party identification. We show that the distribution of party identification is strongly affected by question wording and that the relationship between party identification and variables such as party and leader ratings, and voting behavior does not quite conform to theoretical expectations. We point out problems in the wording of party identification questions and propose an alternative formulation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bartle, John (1999). Focus groups and measures of party identification: an exploratory study. Typescript: University of Essex.
Brynin, Malcom,and Sanders, David (1997). Party identification, political preferences and material conditions: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Party Politics 3: 53–77.
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, James E., Munro, Mary, Alford, John R., and Campbell, Bruce A. (1986). Partisanship and voting. In Samuel Long (ed.), Research in Micropolitics. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Charnock, David (1996). Question-wording effects on the measurement of nonpartisanship: evidence from Australia. Electoral Studies 15: 263–268.
Converse, Philip E.,and Pierce, Roy E. (1987). Measuring partisanship. Political Methodology 11: 143–166.
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Blais, Andr e´, Nadeau, Richard, and Nevitte, Neil. (in press). The correlates and consequences of anti-partyism. Party Politics.
Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science 34: 872–902. BLAIS, GIDENGIL, NADEAU, AND NEVITTE 22
Greene, Steven (1999). Understanding party identification: a social identity approach. Political Psychology 20: 393–403.
Heath, Anthony,and Pierce, Roy (1992). It was party identification all along: question order effects on reports of party identification in Britain. Electoral Studies 11: 93–105.
Johnston, Richard (1992). Party identification measures in the Anglo-American democracies: a national survey experiment. American Journal of Political Science 36: 542–559.
Keith, Bruce, Magleby, David, Nelson, Candace, Orr, Elisabeth, Westlye, Mark,and Wolfinger, Raymond W. (1986). The partisan affinities of independent ‘leaners.’ British Journal of Political Science 16: 155–185.
Krosnick, Jon A.,and Berent, Matthew K. (1993). Comparison of party identification and policy preferences: the impact of survey question format. American Journal of Political Science 37: 941–964.
Miller, Warren E. (1991). Party identification,realignment,and party voting: back to the basics. American Political Science Review 85: 557–568.
Owen, Diana,and Dennis, Jack (1996). Anti-partyism in the USA and support for Ross Perot. European Journal of Political Research 29: 383–400.
Petrocik, John (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification. Political Methodology 1: 31–47.
Rose, Richard,and McAllister, Ian (1990). The Loyalties of Voters: A Lifetime Learning Model. London: Sage.
Schickler, Eric, and Green, Donald P. (1997). The stability of party identification in western democracies: results from eight panel surveys. Comparative Political Studies 30: 450–483.
Tajfel, Henri,and Turner, John C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Weisberg, Herbert F. (1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification. Political Behavior 2: 33–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R. et al. Measuring Party Identification: Britain, Canada, and the United States. Political Behavior 23, 5–22 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017665513905
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017665513905