The Dynamics of Party Identification

Abstract

This article presents a model of individuals' party identification that contrasts with previous models. Past models, with the few recent exceptions noted, assume a hierarchical relationship either from identification to other aspects of political behavior, such as the perception and evaluation of issues and candidates, or from these behaviors to party identifications. The model discussed here places party within a dynamic concept of the electoral process and tests several hypotheses about factors producing changes in identifications. The first factor, consistent with the spatial-type issue voting models, estimates the effects of the relative proximity of each party to the individual's own policy preferences. Second, we examine the effect of the actual voting decision on subsequent identifications, with the expectation that if votes differ from previous identifications, there is a resulting shift in partisanship. Finally, we examine the hypothesis that identifications become less susceptible to change as people age and accumulate political experience. When combined with other research, the results indicate a model of the electoral process in which party identifications are both influenced by circumstances specific to each election and influence other behaviors. This nonrecursive model has a number of implications for the development and evolution of individual and aggregate partisanship. These implications are discussed at the end of the article.

Inheritance and the Dynamics of Party Identification

“…However, most revisionist models provide an initial state term that allows for socialization influences, although its conceptual status remains rather vague (Achen 1992, Fiorina 1981, Franklin & Jackson 1983, Niemi & Jennings 1991. Only recently has Achen (2002) formally laid out the rational choice foundations of this term.…”

“…Moreover, corroborating the central claim of the revisionists, Fiorina (1981) has found that individuals change their attachments in response to performance evaluations, and several other studies have indicated that party identifications are adjusted to changing policy preferences (i.a. Franklin 1984, Franklin & Jackson 1983, Niemi & Jennings 1991. Proponents of the traditional conception have in turn attributed a substantial share of individual-level movement to measurement error in survey data (Dalton 1980, Green & Palmquist 1990, Green & Palmquist 1994, and have argued that there is simply not much variability left to be explained by changing political factors once measurement error is taken into account.…”

The Impact of Personality on Cognitive, Behavioral, and Affective Political Processes: The Effects of Need to Evaluate

“…This is especially compelling as these other variables are routinely included in national election surveys precisely because they are so effective in predicting behavioral and cognitive political processes. For example, party identification is one of the most widely studied constructs in electoral politics (e.g., Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960;Franklin & Jackson, 1983;Meier, 1975;Miller, 1991) and has been 7. Some variables had effects on the dependent variables that were in a direction contrary to the predicted effect, and these were given negative Cohen's d estimates in computing the average effect size.…”

Breaking Empirical Deadlocks in the Study of Partisanship: An Overview of Experimental Research Strategies

“…The initial conceptualization of party identification as an enduring attachment that shapes the way in which voters view political figures and issues [1] was prompted by the growth and development of survey research in the early 1950s, and theoretical refinements followed as surveys became more widespread and sophisticated [2][3][4]. During the mid-1970s, nonrecursive statistical models became part of the political science toolkit, and a torrent of studies called into question the assumption that causation flows in one direction from party attachments to issue positions [5,6], performance evaluations [7,8], and candidate evaluations [9]. This line of attack drew on a wide array of surveys, including several conducted outside the United States [10].…”