Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inheritance and the Dynamics of Party Identification

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Extensive research efforts notwithstanding, scholars continue to disagree on the nature and meaning of party identification. Traditionalists conceive of partisanship as a largely affective attachment to a political party that emerges in childhood through parental influences and tends to persist throughout life. The revisionist conception of partisanship is that of a running tally of party utilities that is updated based on current party performance. We attempt to reconcile both schools of thought in an individual difference perspective, showing that the party loyalties acquired through parental influences confirm better the traditional view, while the attachments of individuals who did not inherit their parents’ party loyalties exhibit features more closely matching the revisionist predictions. The analysis is facilitated by uniquely suited longitudinal household data emanating from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study that allow to study party identifications of young adults and their parents on an annual basis from 1984 to 2007.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We follow common practice and use the terms party identification, partisanship, party affiliation, loyalty, attachment, and leanings interchangeably.

  2. For a traditionalist critique of Achen’s model, again, see Gerber and Green (1998).

  3. Currently, SOEP surveys 24,000 individuals in 12,000 households. The data set consists of seven sub-samples, drawn from the population living in Germany at different points in time, in order to compensate for panel attrition and to allow for group-specific analyses (Kroh and Spiess 2008).

  4. The difference in question formats leads to higher rates of independents in European surveys as compared to US data. In a cross-sectional perspective, almost 40% of the SOEP sample reported in the 1980s not to support any party, today this figure hovers around 50%. However, taking a longitudinal perspective, we find that almost 90% of the sample in the 1980s name at least once a party in a five-year period and today this still holds for more than 70% of the sample. We therefore conclude a high prevalence of partisanships in Germany despite the inflated cross-sectional rates of independents.

  5. As reported in the review of the socialization literature, several studies suggest that the transmission of party identifications may even start at a time when young children themselves lack a basic understanding of political processes and events (e.g., Greenstein 1965). Other authors, however, date the formation of an initial party identification as late as in the mid-20s (Alwin et al. 1991; Jennings and Niemi 1981; Jennings and Markus 1984). Due to these ambiguities, many scholars use the first vote as crystallization of the initial political preferences (Campbell et al. 1960; Hyman 1959). For a critical review, see Sears and Valentino (1997). We therefore employ a very broad definition of the formative years, considering parents’ partisanship during their offspring’s entire childhood. We define the age of 17 as terminating this period of parental primacy and beginning a second period in which young adults potentially start incorporating externally available political information.

  6. At a maximum level, we observe the partisanship of both mother and father in these 17 years. At a minimum level, we consider at least 2 years of information on (single) parents’ party identification as sufficient to define the socializing experience of young adults.

  7. Based on the available partisan statements of parents, other procedures for building a compound measure of the political color of parental households can be used. For instance, one could weight recent statements more heavily in the construction of such a measure than parents’ partisanship 15 years before. We refrain from such an approach as our measure of parental partisanship is not primarily meant to maximize the prediction of young adults’ initial partisanship but is designed to also capture the steady partisan cues provided by parents during their offspring’s childhood that may plausibly affect the persistence of young adults’ partisanship.

  8. Although the SOEP on principle is a random sample of the population living in Germany, the analyzed sample in the present analysis is not representative of the general population at a single point in time but of the cohorts born between 1969 and 1989. For the first cohort of 1969, for instance, we obtain the minimum of two observations on parental partisanship in the waves 1984 and 1985 when respondents themselves are 15 and 16 years old. The initial partisanship of the 1969 cohort is then measured in the subsequent waves 1986, 1987, or 1988 at age 17, 18, or 19. However, our sample is selective in that it only contains individuals for whom we also have sufficient information on their parents.

  9. If both state and trait dependence were governing individual party identification, the term true state dependence would be used to denote the effect of a recent (change in a) party leaning on present partisanship, controlling for trait dependence.

  10. Note that we restrict our sample to those adolescents who do report an initial party identification at age 17–19 and ignore respondents who remain indifferent. Young adults from indifferent settings as well as those from partisan households who did not take up their parents views are highly similar in terms of the dynamic behavior of their party identifications and subsequent analyses. We therefore treat these two groups jointly as representing non-inherited party identifications.

  11. We have also fitted a baseline model that omits the lagged and the initial party identification. The estimates suggest, in contrast to the findings of Table 1, that, on average, the inheritance group is less likely to report political indifference.

  12. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing to this.

References

  • Achen, C. H. (1992). Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research. Political Behaviour, 14, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achen, C. H. (2002). Parental socialization and rational party identification. Political Behavior, 24, 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 55–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1973). Social learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, B. L., Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Smidt, C. D., & Smith, R. M. (2005). Heterogeneity, state-dependence, and the dynamics of individual-level party identification (Manuscript).

  • Björklund, A., Eriksson, T., Jäntti, M., Oddbjörn, R., & Österbacka, E. (2002). Brother correlations in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden compared to the United States. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 757–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Smith, R. M. (1998). Investigating political dynamics using fractional integration methods. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 661–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burden, B. C., & Klofstad, C. A. (2005). Affect and cognition in party identification. Political Psychology, 26, 869–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., & Stokes, D. E. (1969). Political change in Britain. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassel, C. A. (1982). Predicting party identification: Who are the Republicans and who are the Democrats? Political Behavior, 4, 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E., & Markus, G. B. (1979). Plus ca change ...: The New CPS Election Study Panel. American Political Science Review, 73, 32–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowden, J. A., & McDermott, R. M. (2000). Short-term forces and partisanship. Political Behavior, 22, 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (1980). Reassessing political socialization: Indicator unreliability versus generational transfer. American Political Science Review, 74, 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63, 406–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1969). Children in the political system. Ney York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaves, L., Heath, A., Martin, N., Maes, H., Neale, M., Kendler, K., Kirk, K., & Corey, L. (1999). Comparing the biological and cultural inheritance of personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Research, 2, 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falter, J., Schoen, H., & Caballero, C. (2000). Dreissig Jahre danach. Zur Validierung des Konzepts ‘Parteiidentifikation’ in der Bundesrepublik. In M. Klein, W. Jagodzinski, E. Mochmann, & D. Ohr (Eds.), 50 Jahre Empirische Wahlforschung in Deutschland. Entwicklungen, Befunde, Perspektive, Daten. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (2002). Parties and partisanship: A 40-year retrospective. Political Behavior, 24, 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleury, C. J., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1993). Anchoring the French voter: Ideology versus party. Journal of Politics, 55, 1100–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. H. (1984). Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 459–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. H., & Jackson, J. E. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review, 77, 957–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-term effects of head start. American Economic Review, 92, 999–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1998). Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 794–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generation families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51, 685–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1990). Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science, 3, 872–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Palmquist, B. (1994). How stable is party identification? Political Behavior, 16, 437–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Yoon, D. H. (2002). Reconciling individual and aggregate evidence concerning partisan stability: Applying time-series models to panel data. Political Analysis, 10, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. (2004). Social identitiy theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 136–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, F. I. (1965). Children and politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., & Borjas, G. J. (1980). Does unemployment cause future unemployment? Definitions, questions and answers from a continuous time model of heterogeneity and state dependence. Economica, 47, 247–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, R. D., & Torney, J. D. (1967). The development of political attitudes in children. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, H. H. (1959). Political socialization. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Markus, G. B. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: Results from the three-wave political socialization panel study. The American Political Science Review, 78, 1000–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. The American Political Science Review, 62, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., & Hout, M. (1974). Social and demographic factors in American political party affiliations, 1952–72. American Sociological Review, 39, 700–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroh, M., & Selb, P. (2009). Individual and contextual origins of durable partisanship. In J. Bartle & P. Bellucci (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes (pp. 107–120). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroh, M., & Spiess, M. (2008). Documentation of sample sizes and panel attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) 1984–2007. Number 39 in Data Documentation. Berlin: DIW.

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1991). The stability of political preferences: Comparisons of symbolic and nonsymbolic attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 547–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, R. I., Eaves, L. J., Maes, H. H., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Further evidence against the environmental transmission of individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of 45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. Behavior Genetics, 30, 223–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, M. B. (1961). Social climates and political socialization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & McKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, I., & Kelley, J. (1985). Party identification and political socialization: A note on Australia and Britain. European Journal of Political Research, 13, 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., & Jennings, M. K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 970–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., Ross, R. D., & Alexander, J. (1978). The similarity of political values of parents and college-age youths. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 503–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt-Beck, R., Weick, S., & Christoph, B. (2006). Shaky attachments: Individual-level stability and change of partisanship among west German voters, 1984–2001. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 581–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searing, D., Wright, G., & Rabinowitz, G. (1976). The primacy principle: Attitude change and political socialization. British Journal of Political Science, 6, 83–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O. (1983). The persistence of early political predispositions: The role of attitude object and lie stage. In W. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 79–116). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1999). Evidence of long-term persistence of adults’ political predisposition. Journal of Politics, 61, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O., & Valentino, N. A. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91, 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shachar, R. (2003). Party loyalty as habit formation. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shively, W. P. (1972). Party identification, party choice, and voting stability: The Weimar case. American Political Science Review, 66, 1203–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2003). Multilevel logistic regression for polytomous data and rankings. Psychometrika, 68, 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedin, K. L. (1974). The influence of parents on the political attitudes of adolescents. American Political Science Review, 68, 1579–1592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen, J. (1976). Party identification as a cross-national concept: It’s meaning in the Netherlands. In C. Ivor, B. Ian, & D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond. Representations of voting and party competition (pp. 63–79). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. R., Sheridan, J. T., & Hauser, R. M. (2002). Occupational stratification across the life course: Evidence from the Wisconsin longitudinal study. American Sociological Review, 67, 432–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wawro, G. (2002). Estimating dynamic panel data models in political science. Political Analysis, 10, 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westholm, A. (1999). The perceptual pathway: Tracing the mechanisms of political value transfer across generations. Political Psychology, 20, 525–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, A. S. (Ed.). (2005). The social logic of partisanship. Philadelphia: Temple.

  • Zuckerman, A. S., Dasovic, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Partisan families: The social logic of bounded partisanship in Germany and Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Mohrenstr. 58, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Kroh

  2. Department of Political Science and Management, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstr. 10, 78457, Konstanz, Germany

    Peter Selb

Authors
  1. Martin Kroh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Selb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Kroh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kroh, M., Selb, P. Inheritance and the Dynamics of Party Identification. Polit Behav 31, 559–574 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9084-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9084-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation