Dreißig Jahre danach: Zur Validierung des Konzepts ‘Parteiidentifikation’ in der Bundesrepublik

The Individual-Level Dynamics of Bounded Partisanship

“…Various studies have confirmed that party identification is a valid concept in the German context and that it is quite distinct from actual party choice (for a review see Falter et al 2000;c.f. Falter 1977c.f.…”

“…Nevertheless, the same lingering questions about partisanship remain unanswered for the German mass public. Several studies found partisanship to be highly stable (Klingemann 1985;Falter et al 2000;Schmitt-Beck and Weick 2001;Arzheimer and Schoen 2005), while others find party identification to be a 'shaky attachment' (Schmitt-Beck et al 2006;c.f. Zelle 1995;Zuckerman and Kroh 2006;Kroh and Selb 2009).…”

Stability and Change in Party Preference

“…Explaining stability in party preference by strength of party identification thus solves neither the problem of endogeneity nor of simultaneity. Empirical tests for Western European multi party systems even suggest that party identification and voting cannot be empirically distinguished, as party identification is not more stable than party preference (Budge et al 1976;Falter et al 2000).…”

“…More frequently analysed with panel data is the stability of party identification, where the question whether party identification reacts to short term influences is subject to an extensive debate (e.g. Falter et al 2000;Green and Yoon 2002;Wawro 2002;Clarke et al 2004;Arzheimer and Schoen 2005;Schmitt-Beck et al 2006).…”

Growth trajectories in the strength of party identification: The legacy of autocratic regimes

“…Strength of party identification -the outcome of interest-has been measured in the SOEP since 1984 on an annual basis using the standard measurement from German political science (Falter et al, 2000). This instrument draws on three consecutive questions: "Many people in Germany lean towards one party in the long term, even if they occasionally vote for another 1 As noted below, the number of respondents in the present analysis is larger than the current sample because of refreshments for people who have died, moved out of the country, or stopped their participation in the panel.…”