Political Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 197–222 | Cite as

Short-Term Forces and Partisanship

  • Jonathan A. Cowden
  • Rose M. McDermott
Article

Abstract

One of the most intriguing aspects of the debate regarding the persistence of party identification is that proponents of different schools of thought have each managed to use the same quasi-experimental data and similar state of the art techniques to defend their point of view. In this article we argue that this debate cannot be resolved with quasi-experimental data alone and propose another method that we believe can help us triangulate in on the correct answer: experimentation. Two experiments are performed and analyzed. The first tests the hypothesis that party identification is updated in response to the vote choice; the second tests the hypothesis that candidate evaluations influence party choices. The results of our experiments provide some additional support for the traditional conception of partisanship as the unmoved mover of American politics.

party identification short-term forces experiment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder Jr., James M., and Stewart, III, Charles (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science 44: 17–34.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, Elliot, and Carlsmith, J. Merill (1954). Experiments in social psychology. In Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition, vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Barone, Michael, and Ujifusa, Grant. (1999). The Almanac of American Politics. Washington, DC: National Journal.Google Scholar
  4. Bartels, Larry M. (1991). Instrumental and ‘quasi-instrumental’ variables. American Journal of Political Science 40: 777–800.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, Daryl J. (1967). Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review 74: 183–200.Google Scholar
  6. Bem, Daryl J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William N. (1954). Voting: A Studyof Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brody, Richard A. (1977). Stability and change in party identification: Presidential to off-years. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  9. Brody, Richard A., and Rothenberg, Lawrence S. (1988). The instability of partisanship: an analysis of the 1980 presidential election. British Journal of Political Science 18: 445–465.Google Scholar
  10. Burnham, Walter Dean. (1965). The changing shape of the American political universe. American Political Science Review 59: 7–28.Google Scholar
  11. Burnham, Walter Dean (1970). Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren, and Stokes. Donald (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E. (1954). The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, Donald T. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif (eds.), Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, James E., Munroe, Mary, Alford, John R., and Campbell, Bruce A. (1986). Partisanship and voting. In Samuel Long (ed.), Research in Micropolitics, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  17. Converse, Philip E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies2: 139–171.Google Scholar
  18. Converse, Philip E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse (eds.), The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Converse, Philip E. (1975). Public opinion and voting behavior. In Fred I Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.), The Handbook of Political Science, vol. 4. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Converse, Philip E., and Markus, Gregory B. (1979). Plus ca change...: the new CPS election study panel. American Political Science Review 73: 32–49.Google Scholar
  21. Cover, Albert (1977). One good term deserves another: the advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science 21: 523–541.Google Scholar
  22. Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott (1989). What Americans Know about Politics and WhyIt Matters. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A. (1998). What moves macropartisanship? A response to Green, Palmquist, and Schickler. American Political Science Review 92: 901–912.Google Scholar
  24. Fearon, James (1991). Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World Politics, 43: 169–195.Google Scholar
  25. Fiorina, Morris P. (1977). Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fiorina, Morris P. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fisher, Ronald, Grant, Peter, Hall, Ronald, and Keasly, Loraleigh (1990). The development and testing of strategic simulation of intergroup conflict. Journal of Personality124: 223–240.Google Scholar
  28. Fiske, Susan, and Taylor, Shelley (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Franklin, Charles H. (1992). Measurement and dynamics of party identification. Political Behavior 14: 297–309.Google Scholar
  30. Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review 77: 957–973.Google Scholar
  31. Frymer, Paul (1999). UneasyAlliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary (1993). Why are presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23: 409–451.Google Scholar
  33. Green, Donald Philip (1990). The effects of measurement error on two-stage, least squares estimates. In James A. Stimson (ed.), Political Analysis, vol. 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  34. Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science 34: 872–902.Google Scholar
  35. Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley (1994). How stable is party identification? Political Behavior 16: 437–466.Google Scholar
  36. Green, Donald Philip, and Schickler, Eric (1993). Multiple-measure assessments of party identification. Public Opinion Quarterly 57: 503–535.Google Scholar
  37. Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. (1987). News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, John E. (1975a). Issues and party alignment. In Louis Maisel and Paul M. Sacks (eds.), The Future of Political Parties. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Jackson, John E. (1975b). Issues, party choices, and presidential votes. American Journal of Political Science 19: 161–185.Google Scholar
  40. Jeannerod, Marc (1998). Representations for action. In Michael Sobourin and Fergus Craik (eds.), Advances in Psychological Science, Vol. 2: Biological and Cognitive, vol. 2. Hove, Psychology Press/Erlbaum United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Jennings, M. Kent, and Markus, Gregory B. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: results from the three-wave political socialization panel study. American Political Science Review 78: 1000–1018.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, Edward E., Davis, Keith E., and Gergen, Kenneth J. (1961). Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63: 302–310.Google Scholar
  43. Jones Edward E., and Nisbett, Richard E. (1972). The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Edward E. Jones, David E. Kanouse, Harold H. Kelley, Richard E. Nisbett, Stuart Valins, and Bernard Weiner (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kern, Jeffrey (1991). An evaluation of a novel role play methodology: a standardized ideographic approach. Behavior Therapy 22: 13–29.Google Scholar
  45. Kipper, David, and Uspiz, Varda (1987). Emotional and cognitive responses in role playing. Journal of Group Psychotherapy 39: 131–142.Google Scholar
  46. Knight, Kathleen (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: ideological sophistication does matter. Journal of Politics 47: 828–853.Google Scholar
  47. Knight, Kathleen (1990). Ideology and public opinion. Micropolitics 3: 59–82.Google Scholar
  48. Larson, Richard J., and Marx, Morris L. (1986). An Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Applications. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Lewin, Kurt, Lippitt, Ronald, and White, Ralph K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created 'social climates.’ Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271–299.Google Scholar
  50. MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A. (1989). Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review 42: 661–689.Google Scholar
  51. MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., Stimson, James A., Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom Jr., Charles W. (1992). Question wording and macropartisanship. American Political Science Review 86: 475–486.Google Scholar
  52. Markus, Gregory B. (1982). Political attitudes during an election year: a report on the 1980 NES panel study. American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.Google Scholar
  53. Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.Google Scholar
  54. Meier, Kenneth J. (1975). Party identification and vote choice: the causal relationship. Western Political Quarterly 28: 496–505.Google Scholar
  55. Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill (1982). Policy directions and presidential leadership: alternative interpretations of the 1980 presidential election. British Journal of Political Science 12: 299–356.Google Scholar
  56. Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill (1996). The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nisbett, Richard E., and Wilson, Timothy D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84: 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties, and the vote. American Political Science Review 73: 1071–1089.Google Scholar
  59. Petrocik, John R. (1981). PartyCoalitions: Realignments and the Decline of the New Deal PartySy stem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Riker, William H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Schacter, Stanley, and Singer, Jerome (1962). Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional states. Psychological Review 69: 379–399.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Schattschneider, E.E. (1975). The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  63. Schickler, Eric, and Green, Donald Philip (1995). Issue preferences and the dynamics of party identification: a methodological critique. In John R. Freeman (ed.), Political Analysis, vol. 5. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sears, David O., and Valentino, Nicholas A. (1997). Politics matters: political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Review 91: 45–65.Google Scholar
  65. Serra, George, and Moon, David (1994). Casework, issue positions, and voting in congressional elections: a district analysis. Journal of Politics 56: 200–213.Google Scholar
  66. St. Lawrence, Janet, Kirksy, William, and Moor, Tamara (1983). External validity of role play: assessments of assertive behavior. Journal of Behavioral Assessment 5: 25–34.Google Scholar
  67. Stokes, Donald E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57: 368–377.Google Scholar
  68. Sundquist, James L. (1983). Dynamics of the Party System. Revised edn. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  69. Targrud, Laurie, and Holburn, Stephen (1992). Developing external validity: role play for assessment of social skills: a behavior analytic approach. Behavioral Assessment14: 3–4.Google Scholar
  70. Valins, Stuart (1966). Cognitive effects of false heart-rate feedback. Journal of Social and PersonalityPsy chology 4: 400–408.Google Scholar
  71. Wattenberg, Martin P. (1994). The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1992. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wolfe, Joseph, and Roberts, Richard (1993). A further study of the external validity of business games: Five year peer group indicators. Simulations and Gaming 24: 21–32.Google Scholar
  73. Zaller, John R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Public Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan A. Cowden
    • 1
  • Rose M. McDermott
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentCornell UniversityIthaca
  2. 2.Department of GovernmentCornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations