Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-s5ss2 Total loading time: 0.291 Render date: 2021-02-25T05:38:20.283Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
American Political Science Review American Political Science Review

Article contents

Partisan Affect and Elite Polarization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

DANIEL DIERMEIER  and
CHRISTOPHER LI
DANIEL DIERMEIER
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
CHRISTOPHER LI
Affiliation:
Yale University
Corresponding
E-mail address:
ddiermeier@uchicago.edu
christopher.li@yale.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the interaction between partisan affect and elite polarization in a behavioral voting model. Voting is determined by affect rather than rational choice. Parties are office-motivated; they choose policies to win elections. We show that parties bias their policies toward their partisans if voters exhibit ingroup responsiveness, i.e., they respond more strongly to their own party’s policy deviations than to policy deviations by the other party. Our results suggest that affective polarization is a driver of the growing elite polarization in American politics. Importantly, this observation does not assume any shifts in the voters’ bliss points and is therefore orthogonal to the controversy over whether the American electorate has become more polarized in ideology.

Type
Letter
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 277 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

Footnotes

We thank the editors, three anonymous reviewers, and participants at various conferences for their helpful suggestions.

References

Abramowitz, Alan, and Saunders, Kyle. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan, and Webster, Steven. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of US Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41: 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher, and Bartels, Larry. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Andonie, Costel, and Diermeier, Daniel. Forthcoming. “Impressionable Voters.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M.. 2000. “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models.” Public Choice 103 (3–4): 327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, Diermeier, Daniel, and Ting, Michael. 2003. “A Behavioral Model of Turnout.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, Kumar, Sunil, and Siegel, David. 2010. “Adaptively Rational Retrospective Voting.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 22 (1): 26–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bisin, Alberto, Lizzeri, Alessandro, and Yariv, Leeat. 2015. “Government Policy with Time Inconsistent Voters.” American Economic Review 105 (6): 1711–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Robert, and Mosteller, Frederick. 1955. Stochastic Models for Learning. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1): 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cole, Shawn, Healy, Andrew, and Werker, Eric. 2012. “Do Voters Demand Responsive Governments? Evidence from Indian Disaster Relief.” Journal of Development Economics 97 (2): 167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Li, Christopher. 2017. “Electoral Control with Behavioral Voters.” The Journal of Politics 79 (3): 890–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggan, John. 2017. “A Survey of Equilibrium Analysis in Spatial Models of Elections.” unpublished manuscript. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cTZQtnRMrL4O7gUI9AEYrohGOk62aQ2K/view.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, Mackuen, Michael, and Stimson, James. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, and Abrams, Samuel. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasper, John, and Reeves, Andrew. 2011. “Make It Rain? Retrospection and the Attentive Electorate in the Context of Natural Disasters.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 340–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2004. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 862–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Krupenkin, Masha. 2018. “The Strengthening of Partisan Affect.” Political Psychology 39: 201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Jeffrey. 2010. “Debt, Gov’t Power Among Tea Party Supporters’ Top Concerns.” Gallup News (July 5, 2010). http://news.gallup.com/poll/141119/debt-gov-power-among-tea-party-supporters-top-concerns.aspx.Google Scholar
Kamada, Yuichiro, and Kojima, Fuhito. 2014. “Voter Preferences, Polarization, and Electoral Policies.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 6 (4): 203–36.Google Scholar
Kimball, David, Summary, Bryce, and Vorst, Eric. 2014. “Political Identify and Party Polarization in the American Electorate”. In In the State of the Parties, ed. Green, John, Coffeey, Daniel, and Cohen, David. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 37–55.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, Carsey, Thomas, and Horowitz, Juliana. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Timothy. 2013. “How the Tea Party Broke the Constitution.” Washington Post (October 14, 2013). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/14/how-the-tea-party-broke-the-constitution.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael, Jacoby, William, Norpoth, Helmut, and Weisberg, Herbert. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Diane, and Cooper, Joel. 1984. “Attitude Polarization: Effects of Group Membership.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (3): 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, José, and Paez, Dario. 1994. “The Black Sheep Effect Social Categorization, Rejection of Ingroup Deviates, and Perception of Group Variability.” European Review of Social Psychology 5 (1): 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, José, Yzerbyt, Vincent, and Leyens, Jacques-Philippe. 1988. “The Black Sheep Effect Extremity of Judgments towards Ingroup Members as a Function of Group Identification.” European Journal of Social Psychology 18 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren, Shanks, Merrill, and Shapiro, Robert. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newport, Frank. 2010. “Tea Party Supporters Overlap Republican Base.” Gallup News (July 2, 2010). https://news.gallup.com/poll/141098/tea-party-supporters-overlap-republican-base.aspx.Google Scholar
Ortoleva, Pietro, and Snowberg, Erik. 2015. “Overconfidence in Political Behavior.” American Economic Review 105 (2): 504–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, John E. 1994. “A Theory of Policy Differentiation in Single Issue Electoral Politics.” Social Choice and Welfare 11 (4): 355–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Jon, and Sutherland, Joseph. 2016. “How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization.” Political Behavior 38 (2): 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2018. # Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1970. “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.” Scientific American 223 (5): 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations 33 (47): 74.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77 (1): 142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfers, Justin. 2007. “Are Voters Rational? Evidence from Gubernatorial Elections.” unpublished manuscript. http://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/Voterrationality(latest).pdf.Google Scholar

Diermeier and Li supplementary material

Diermeier and Li supplementary material 1

PDF 138 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 162
Total number of PDF views: 950 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 13th November 2018 - 25th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

3 Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Partisan Affect and Elite Polarization
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Partisan Affect and Elite Polarization
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Partisan Affect and Elite Polarization
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *