Abstract
As political trust levels continue to decline while levels of partisan polarization increase, we contend that more research is needed to explore the interaction between these two central features of contemporary American politics. Political scientists have debated whether explanations of political trust levels are best informed by the public’s assessment of the political system or of evaluations of individual politicians. In times when partisan polarization is a salient feature of the political arena, we contend that both are important. During highly polarized times, party and trust heuristics become heavily intertwined in the sense that people may continue to rely on their default trust evaluations of the political system but party as the source of government action becomes the major determinant of trust. We discuss how these dynamics influence two specific consequence of political trust—policy outcomes and support for democratic processes. We outline a theoretical framework informed by prior research concerning the dynamics of political trust and partisan polarization and their influence on policy outcomes. Finally, we offer empirical evidence obtained from an experiment that supports our contention that when partisan polarization is primed by the information environment, there are important consequences for support for democratic processes.
Prepared for the 62nd Annual Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, “Cooperation and Compliance with Authority: The Role of Institutional Trust,” 24–25 April 2014.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abramowitz, A. I. (2014). Partisan nation: The rise of affective polarization in the American electorate. In J. Green, D. Coffey, & D. Cohen (Eds.), The state of the parties: The changing role of contemporary American parties (7th ed.). New York, NY: Rowan and Littlefield.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634–652.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2005). Why can’t we all just get along? The reality of a polarized America. The Forum, 3(2), 156. ISSN (Online) 1540–8884, doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1076.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.
Alford, J. R. (2001). We’re all in this together: The decline of trust in government, 1958–1996. In J. R. Hibbing & E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.), What is it about government that Americans dislike? (pp. 28–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Avery, J. M. (2009). Videomalaise or virtuous circle? The influence of the news media on political trust. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 410–433.
Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Capella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2012a). Who fits the left-right divide? Partisan polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 1631–1653.
Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2012b). Political ideology in American politics: one, two, or none? The Forum, 10(4), 1–18.
Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2014). Why Americans can’t get beyond the left-right divide. In J. C. Green, D. Coffey, & D. Cohen (Eds.), The state of the parties: The changing role of contemporary parties (pp. 55–72). Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.
Chait, J. (2014). 4 New studies show Obamacare is working incredibly well. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/4-new-studies-obamacare-working-incredibly-well.html
Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239–256.
Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 973–988.
Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes; measures of social psychological attitudes (Vol. 2, pp. 465–532). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 912–940.
Dalton, R. J. (2013). The Apartisan American: Dealignment and changing electoral politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press/Sage.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755.
Druckman, J. N., Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (2009). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior, 31, 485–510.
Evans, J. (2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized? An update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 71–90.
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 563–588.
Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2010). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 50–73.
Hardin, R. (1999). Do we want trust in government? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 22–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.
Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.
Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hetherington, M. J. (2008). Turned off or turned on? The effects of polarization on political participation, engegement, and representation. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hetherington, M. J., & Husser, J. A. (2012). How trust matters: The changing political relevance of political trust. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 312–325.
Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2014). The emergence of polarized trust. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2484755 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2484755
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy: Public attitudes toward American political institutions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Huddy, L., & Mason, L. (2008). Heated campaign politics: An intergroup conflict model of partisan emotions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 28–31, August, 2008.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. Unpublished manuscript.
Jacobson, G. (2000). Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In J. Bond & R. Fleischer (Eds.), Polarized politics: The president and the congress in a Partisan era. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 169–184.
Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.
King, D. (1997). The polarization of American parties and mistrust of government. In J. Nye, P. Zelikow, & D. King (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Klein, E. (2014). In conservative media, Obamacare is a disaster. In the real world, it’s working. Vox.com. http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6836181/in-conservative-media-obamacare- is-a-disaster-in-the-real-world-it-s
Ladd, J. M. (2012). Why Americans hate the media and why it matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levendusky, M. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Stegmaier, M. (2000). Economic determinants of electoral outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 183–219.
Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–520.
Long, S. K., Karpman, M., Shartzer, A., Wissoker, D., Kenney, G. M., Zuckerman, S., et al. (2014). Taking stock: health insurance coverage under the ACA as of September 2014. Health reform monitoring survey. Urban Institute Health Policy Center, pp. 1–10
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2008). The broken branch: How congress is failing America and how to get it back on track. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Markus, G. B. (1988). The impact of personal and national economic conditions on the presidential vote: A pooled cross-sectional analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 137–154.
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of political ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951–972.
Morris, J. S., & Clawson, R. A. (2005). Media coverage of congress in the 1990s: Scandals, personalities, and the prevalence of policy and process. Political Communication, 22(3), 297–313.
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.
Norris, P. (2000). The impact of television on civic malaise. In S. J. Pharr & R. D. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies (pp. 231–251). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nyhan, B., McGhee, E., Sides, J., Masket, S., & Greene, S. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 844–879.
Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York, NY: Knopf.
Pew Research Center. (2014). Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise and everday life (12 June). Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079.
Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.
Rau, J. & Appleby, J. (2014). More competition helps restrain premiums in federal health marketplace, Kaiser Health News. http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/more-competition-helps-restrain-premiums-in-federal-health-marketplace/
Rein, L., & O’Keefe, E. (2010, October 18). New post poll finds negativity toward federal workers. Washington Post, Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101703866.html
Robinson, M. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of ‘The Selling of the Pentagon’. American Political Science Review, 70, 409–432.
Rudolph, T. J. (2009). Political trust, ideology, and public support for tax cuts. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 144–158.
Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660–671.
Rudolph, T. J., & Popp, E. (2009). Bridging the ideological divide: Trust and support for Social Security privatization. Political Behavior, 31(3), 331–351.
Rudolph, T. J., & Popp, E. (2011). A tale of two ideologies: Explaining public support for economic interventions. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 808–820.
Schoon, I., & Cheng, H. (2011). Determinants of political trust: A lifetime learning model. Developmental Psychology, 47(3), 619–631.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. Oxford: Wiley.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Voteview.com. (2014). The polarization of the congressional parties. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://voteview.com/political_polarization.asp
Wagner, M. W. (2007). The utility of staying on message: competing partisan frames and public awareness of elite differences on issues. The Forum, 5, 1–18.
Wagner, M. W., Barton, D.-G., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2011). The consequences of political vilification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, 1–4 September, 2011.
Wagner, M. W., Wells, C., Friedland, L. A., Cramer, K. J., & Shah, D. V. (2014). Cultural worldviews and contentious politics: Evaluative asymmetry in high-information environments. The Good Society, 23(2), 126–144.
Yiannakis, D. E. (1981). The grateful electorate: Casework and congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 568–580.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
American National Election Studies Surveys
The Political Trust Index is from the ANES Time Series Cumulative Data File (1948–2012), available at http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/download/datacenter_all_datasets.php. The Political Trust Index ranges from 0 (low trust) to 100 (high trust). Each of the four questions that contribute to the index were asked from 1964–2012. (1) “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?” (VCF0604). Response options were: 4 = Just about always, 3 = Most of the time, 2 = Only some of the time, 1 = Never; (2) “Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all the people?” (VCF0605). Response options were: 1 = Run by a few big interests or 2 = Run for the benefit of all the people; (3) “Do you think that people in the government waste a lot of money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it?” (VCF0606). Response options were: 1 = Waste a lot of money, 2 = Waste some of it, or 3 = Don’t waste very much of it; (4) “Do you think that quite a few of the people running the government are crooked, not very many are, or do you think hardly any of them are crooked?” (VCF0608). Response options were: 1 = Quite a few people running the government are crooked, 2 = Not very many are, or 3 = Hardly any are. The index was created by recoding the responses as follows: VCF0604 1 = 0, 2 = 33, 3 = 67, 4 = 100; VCF0605 1 = 0, 2 = 100; VCF0606 and VCF0608 1 = 0, 2 = 50, 3 = 100. The sum of the recoded values was divided by the number of valid responses and then rounded.
Vilification Survey
Political Trust: “On a scale from 1 to 7 where ‘1’ means ‘Never’ and ‘7’ means ‘Always,’ how much would you say you trust the American government?” Response options were recoded to range from 0 = never to 1 = always. This recoding maintains the continuous nature of the original scaling but adjusts the range to be from 0 to 1.
Party Identification: “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or something else?” For those who answered Democrat or Republican, respondents were asked, “Do you consider yourself a strong Democrat/Republican or a not so strong Democrat/Republican?” For those who answered Independent or something else, respondents were asked, “Which of the two major parties do you lean toward?” The traditional seven-point scale of partisanship (with categories strong Democrat, weak Democrat, Independent leaning Democrat, Independent, Independent leaning Republican, weak Republican, and strong Republican) was recoded to range from 0 = strong Democrat to 1 = strong Republican.
Rhetoric Level: Coded 0 = disagreement, .5 = incivility, 1 = vilification.
Compromise vs. Principles: “Would you prefer that members of Congress stand up for their principles come what may or compromise with their opponents in order to get something done?” This indicator variable contained two response options that were coded 0 = stand up for their principles and 1 = compromise with their opponents.
McCoy Compromise: “On a scale from 1 to 4 where ‘1’ means ‘I do not support at all’ and ‘4’ means ‘I support completely,’ which number best reflects your view if…Congressman McCoy compromises with the (opposing party = Republicans when McCoy is a Democrat and = Democrats when McCoy is a Republican) on economic policy.” Response options coded 0 = I do not support at all to 1 = I support completely. Note: In one set of the experiment’s conditions, McCoy is portrayed as a Republican and in the other McCoy is portrayed as a Democrat. Thus the question wording, specifically whether the Republicans or Democrats were mentioned in the question wording, varied depending on the condition.
McCoy Debate: “On a scale from 1 to 4 where ‘1’ means ‘I do not support at all’ and ‘4’ means ‘I support completely,’ which number best reflects your view if…Congressman McCoy engages the (opposing party = Republicans when McCoy is a Democrat and = Democrats when McCoy is a Republican) in debate about economic policy.” Response options coded 0 = I do not support at all to 1 = I support completely.
Age: “What is your year of birth?” Transformed to reflect age, recoded to range from 0 = 19 years old to 1 = oldest age in sample. This recoding maintains the continuous nature of the variable.
Gender: “Are you male or female?” Coded 0 = female, 1 = male.
Race: “What race or races do you consider yourself? Select all that apply.” Coded 0 = all responses other than “white/caucasian,” 1 = white.
Education: “What is the highest level of formal education you have completed?” The response options were 0–11 years, high school graduate, technical/trade school, some college, college graduate, some graduate school, Master’s degree, and professional degree. Recoded to range from 0 = 0–11 years to 1 = Professional degree. Again, this recoding maintains the continuous nature of the variable but adjusts the range to be from 0 to 1.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Theiss-Morse, E., Barton, DG., Wagner, M.W. (2015). Political Trust in Polarized Times. In: Bornstein, B., Tomkins, A. (eds) Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol 62. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16151-8_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16150-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16151-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)