Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-rq46b Total loading time: 0.359 Render date: 2022-12-03T14:08:09.159Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Canadian Parties Matter More Than You Think: Party and Leader Ratings Moderate Party Cue Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2020

Eric Guntermann*
Affiliation:
Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall #1950, Berkeley, CA94720-1950
Erick Lachapelle
Affiliation:
Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C. P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, QCH3C 3J7
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ericguntermann@berkeley.edu

Abstract

Scholars have long studied the influence of parties on citizens’ policy preferences. Experiments conducted outside Canada have convincingly shown that the cues offered by political parties can influence people’s attitudes. However, the most prominent study of party cue effects in Canada finds weak effects, concluding that Canadian parties are less influential because they are less clearly ideological than parties elsewhere. We propose that parties are actually more influential than they appear because party cue effects partly depend on variables other than partisanship, notably attitudes toward the cue-giver. This is especially true in countries like Canada with multi-party systems. We show that attitudes toward parties are not clearly reflected in partisanship in Canada. We then show that more specific measures of party and leader attitudes better account for how experimental participants react to cues than does party identification alone.

Résumé

Résumé

Les universitaires étudient depuis longtemps l'influence des partis sur les préférences politiques des citoyens. Des expériences menées à l'étranger ont montré de manière convaincante que les consignes données par les partis politiques peuvent influencer l'attitude des gens. Toutefois, l'étude la plus importante sur les effets des consignes données par les partis au Canada révèle des effets faibles, concluant que les partis canadiens sont moins influents parce qu'ils sont moins clairement idéologiques que les partis d'autres pays. Nous proposons que les partis sont en fait plus influents qu'ils ne le paraissent parce que les effets de leurs consignes dépendent en partie de variables autres que la partisanerie, notamment les attitudes envers le donneur de mots d'ordre. C'est particulièrement vrai dans des pays comme le Canada, qui ont un système multipartite. Nous montrons que les attitudes à l'égard des partis ne se reflètent pas clairement dans la partisanerie au Canada. Nous montrons ensuite que des mesures plus spécifiques des attitudes à l'égard des partis et des dirigeants rendent mieux compte de la façon dont les participants à l'expérience réagissent aux consignes que ne le fait la seule identification à des partis.

Type
Research Note/Notes de recherche
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaroe, Lene. 2012. “When Citizens Go against Elite Directions: Partisan Cues and Contrast Effects on Citizens'Attitudes.” Party Politics 18 (2): 215–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American National Election Studies (ANES), . 2019. "ANES 2016. September 4, 2019 Release." September 4. https://electionstudies.org/data-center/2016-time-series-study/.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Guntermann, Eric and Bodet, Marc André. 2017. “Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy.Political Science Research and Methods 5 (2): 315–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Druckman, James N. and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 235–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 496515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G., Gerber, Alan S., Hill, Seth J. and Huber, Gregory A.. 2015. “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10: 519–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. and McGrath, Mary C.. 2019. “The Evidence for Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Preference Formation.” Nature Climate Change 9: 111–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 5779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, Cutler, Fred, Soroka, Stuart and Stolle, Dietlind. 2015. "2015 Canadian Election Study. Web and Phone Combined File." https://ces-eec.arts.ubc.ca/english-section/surveys/ (August 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S. and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Guntermann, Eric. 2019. “Party Influence Where Predispositions Are Strong and Party Identification Is Weak: Assessing Citizens’ Reactions to Party Cues on Regional Nationalism in Spain.” Party Politics 25 (4): 609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guntermann, Eric. 2020. “Beyond Party Identification.” In Research Handbook on Political Partisanship, ed. Oscarsson, Henrik and Holmberg, Sören. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Mummolo, Jonathan and Xu, Yiqing. 2019. “How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice.” Political Analysis 27 (2): 163–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27 (2): 163–82.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. and Trussler, Marc J.. 2017. “At the Nexus of Observational and Experimental Research: Theory, Specification, and Analysis of Experiments with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects.” Political Behavior 39 (4): 789815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lachapelle, Erick, Borick, Christopher P. and Rabe, Barry. 2012. “Public Attitudes toward Climate Science and Climate Policy in Federal Systems: Canada and the United States Compared.” Review of Policy Research 29 (3): 334–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J. and Slothuus, Rune. 2014. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation.Political Psychology 35 (S1): 129–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel. 2012. Follow the Leader: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton and Taber, Charles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 6376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, Liliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, R. Michael, Caruana, Nicholas J. and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2015. “Negative Partisanship in a Multi-Party System: The Case of Canada.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25 (3): 300–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, Mike and Noël, Alain. 2014. “The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo-American Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (7): 1022–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merolla, Jennifer L, Stephenson, Laura B. and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2007. “La aplicación de los métodos experimentales en el estudio de los atajos informativos en México.” Política y gobierno 14 (1): 117–42.Google Scholar
Merolla, Jennifer L, Stephenson, Laura B. and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2008. “Can Canadians Take a Hint? The (In)Effectiveness of Party Labels as Information Shortcuts in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 673–96.Google Scholar
Morin-Chassé, Alexandre and Lachapelle, Erick. 2020. “Partisan Strength and the Politicization of Global Climate Change: A Re-examination of Sculdt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 10: 3140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Michael Bang, Giessing, Ann and Nielsen, Jesper. 2015. “Physiological Responses and Partisan Bias: Beyond Self-Reported Measures of Party Identification.” PloS One 10 (5): 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael Bang, Skov, Martin, Serritzlew, Søren and Ramsøy, Thomas. 2013. “Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues.” Political Behavior 35 (4): 831–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slothuus, Rune. 2016. “Assessing the Influence of Political Parties on Public Opinion: The Challenge from Pretreatment Effects.” Political Communication 33 (2): 302–27.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Guntermann and Lachapelle supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Guntermann and Lachapelle supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 139 KB
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Canadian Parties Matter More Than You Think: Party and Leader Ratings Moderate Party Cue Effects
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Canadian Parties Matter More Than You Think: Party and Leader Ratings Moderate Party Cue Effects
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Canadian Parties Matter More Than You Think: Party and Leader Ratings Moderate Party Cue Effects
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *