Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections

Bankert, Alexa

doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09599-1

Cited by 71 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As long as feelings toward the opposition remain more negative than feelings toward one's own party, that party remains the “lesser of two evils.” Although most accounts attribute partisan anger to the strengthening of social identity (e.g., Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes, ; Mason, ), analyses of ANES data show that a good deal of this negativity is coming from partisans whose feelings toward their party are not particularly congenial. This pattern is consistent with lesser‐of‐two‐evils identity defense (Groenendyk, ) and “negative partisanship” (Abramowitz & Webster, ; Bankert, ).…”

Section: The Dual Motivations Approachsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…1 Recent studies have shown increased evidence of what is sometimes called "negative partisanship" (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016). Specifically, partisans' attitudes toward the other party have declined precipitously (Iyengar et al, 2012), and this animosity seems to have become a more powerful driver of behavior (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016;Bankert, 2017;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). Some have attributed these trends to the strengthening of social identification with parties (Iyengar et al, 2012;Iyengar & Westwood, 2015;Mason, 2015), whereas others contend that the very nature of partisanship is changing (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016;Bankert, 2017).…”

Section: The Dual Motivations Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, the goal is to determine whether the recent rise of partisan animosity might be attributed to this identity-defense strategy. Affective polarization and negative partisanship have been attributed to a fundamental change in the nature of partisanship, but lesser-of-two-evils identity defense would lead to the same pattern: Attitudes toward the outparty would decline (Iyengar et al, 2012) and become the anchor of party identification and behavior (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016;Bankert, 2017). Figure 4 illustrates the expected pattern associated with lesser-of-two-evils identity defense in two-dimensional attitude space, where the x-axis represents feelings toward the Democratic Party and the y-axis represents feelings toward the Republican Party.…”

Section: Partisan Defensivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, the goal is to determine whether the recent rise of partisan animosity might be attributed to this identity‐defense strategy. Affective polarization and negative partisanship have been attributed to a fundamental change in the nature of partisanship, but lesser‐of‐two‐evils identity defense would lead to the same pattern: Attitudes toward the outparty would decline (Iyengar et al, ) and become the anchor of party identification and behavior (Abramowitz & Webster, ; Bankert, ).…”

Section: The Dual Motivations Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Competing Motives in a Polarized Electorate: Political Responsiveness, Identity Defensiveness, and the Rise of Partisan Antipathy

Groenendyk

2018

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the polarization literature, the electorate has sorted into more ideologically homogenous partisan groups, and this increase in cohesion within parties has fueled animosity between partisans. But, are mass parties really as cohesive as we think? If not, what else might be helping to drive up antipathy between partisans? Building on the dual motivations theory of party identification (Groenendyk, ), I theorize that elite polarization has amplified partisans' often competing motivations: People want to be good citizens but also good partisans. Consistent with this theory, American National Election Studies (ANES) data suggest that partisans are not just evaluating the other party more negatively, but they are also reporting less positive evaluations of, and greater ambivalence toward, their own party. This suggests substantive responsiveness. On the other hand, they appear to be rationalizing continued identification with their party in the face of this ambivalence by reporting even more negative feelings toward the other party. In other words, they seem to be engaging in the “lesser of two evils” identity defense (Groenendyk, , ). Overall, these results suggest that parties need not be internally cohesive to be divided against one another, making partisan dynamics more fluid than many accounts imply.

show abstract

Section: The Dual Motivations Approachsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: The Dual Motivations Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Partisan Defensivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Dual Motivations Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Competing Motives in a Polarized Electorate: Political Responsiveness, Identity Defensiveness, and the Rise of Partisan Antipathy

Groenendyk

2018

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So far, it lacks a clear conceptualization as well as a consistent measurement, but was shown to mobilize electoral behaviour (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016;Bankert, 2020;Maggiotto & Piereson, 1977;Mayer, 2017a;Medeiros & Noel, 2014;Michael McGregor, Caruana, & Stephenson, 2015;Richardson, 1991;Rose & Mishler, 1998) as well as increasing democratic dissatisfaction especially after "lost" elections (Ridge, 2020;Spoon & Kanthak, 2019) and political conflict (Abramowitz & Webster, 2018;Meléndez & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2019). Based on different types of partian attachments, Rose and Mishler (1998) provided a typology of partisans that allows to categorize four types: apartisan (no identifications), open (only positive), closed (both types) or negative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual narcissism, need for closure and the two sides of negative partisanship

Mayer¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usual studies of the underpinnings of partisan attachments only consider positive party identifications and the Big Five framework. However, negative party identification is an important understudied side of party identification that affects democratic dissatisfaction and political conflict. This article studies how individual differences such as the Big Five personality traits, narcissistic admiration and rivalry, as well as need for closure affect negative party identification and partisanship types, such as being a negative, open, or closed partisan. I argue that different types of partisan attachments fulfill different psychological needs and the kind of attachments individuals show can thus be traced back to their personality features. Based on a novel online quota survey from Germany conducted in February 2021 (N= 2,095), I find agreeableness as well as narcissistic rivalry to be central traits for different types of partisanship. Furthermore, negative partisans against a radical-right party show a different profile from partisans with other system parties.

show abstract

Partisanship as a Social Identity: Implications for Polarization

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that partisanship has developed into a social identity is one of the dominant explanations for the current rising levels of affective polarization among the U.S. electorate. We provide evidence that partisanship functions as a social identity, but that the salience of partisan identity-in and of itself-does not account for increased affective polarization. Using a two-wave panel survey capturing natural variation in the salience of politics, we find that partisanship contributes more to individuals' self-concept in times of heightened political salience. We also show that partisans can be detached from their Democratic or Republican identity by having them focus on individuating characteristics (by way of a self-affirmation treatment). However, we find only limited evidence that when partisan social identity is made less salient, either by way of natural variation in political context or through a selfaffirmation treatment, partisans are any less inclined to express in-party favoritism and out-party hostility. Taken together, our evidence shows that partisanship does operate as an important social identity, but that affective polarization is likely attributable to more than the classic in-group versus out-group distinction.

show abstract

Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections

Cited by 71 publications

References 34 publications

Competing Motives in a Polarized Electorate: Political Responsiveness, Identity Defensiveness, and the Rise of Partisan Antipathy

Competing Motives in a Polarized Electorate: Political Responsiveness, Identity Defensiveness, and the Rise of Partisan Antipathy

Individual narcissism, need for closure and the two sides of negative partisanship

Partisanship as a Social Identity: Implications for Polarization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About