The Impact of Elite Polarization on Partisan Ambivalence and Indifference

Thornton, Judd R.

doi:10.1007/s11109-012-9196-y

Cited by 49 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general I find that ambivalence has a more pronounced effect on political engagement in the United States than in Great Britain. This finding may be the result of increased polarization among American political elites (Thornton, ). I also observe that the effect of ambivalence across British districts has either a dampening or bolstering effect on participation, perhaps due to the number of parties running for election.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context

Johnson

2013

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars of American politics have generally found a negative relationship between ambivalence and political engagement. This study explores such conclusions and argues that the effect of ambivalence on engagement varies according to electoral context. Using a multi‐level modeling strategy, I find that ambivalence has a significant overall effect on political engagement for citizens in the United States but a lesser overall impact for citizens in Great Britain. Yet by allowing the slope and the intercept of ambivalence to vary across parliamentary districts, I find that ambivalence has asymmetrical effects on political engagement within Britain. I conclude by arguing that ambivalence essentially operates in a differential manner across electoral contexts and provide preliminary evidence as to why this is.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context

Johnson

2013

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our argument builds upon recent work by Abramowitz and Webster (2015) and Iyengar et al (2012), who study increases in affective polarization towards elites and political parties over the last several decades. 4 Previous research finds that the nature of the choice between candidates affects a wide range of behaviors and attitudes, including turnout decisions (Brody and Page 1973;Plane and Gershtenson 2004;Rogowski 2014), vote choice (Rogowski forthcoming;Vegetti 2014), and opinion formation (Druckman et al 2013;Garner and Palmer 2011;Thornton 2012). We expect that these dynamics similarly characterize the ways citizens evaluate political officials.…”

Section: Ideological Differences and Affective Polarizationmentioning

confidence: 94%

How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have reached mixed conclusions about the implications of increased political polarization for citizen decision-making. In this paper, we argue that citizens respond to ideological divergence with heightened affective polarization. Using a survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens, we find that increased ideological differences between political figures produce increasingly polarized affective evaluations, and that these differences are especially large among respondents with stronger ideological commitments and higher levels of political interest. We provide further support for these findings in an observational study of citizens' evaluations of the U.S. Senators from their state. We also find that the polarizing effects of ideological differences can be largely mitigated with biographical information about the public officials, which suggests that the pernicious consequences of ideological polarization can be overcome by focusing on matters other than political disagreement.

show abstract

“…This time period, however, may be affected by elite polarization, beginning in 1980 (Thornton, 2013), which could result in partisan sorting. There are several benefits of using the ANES.…”

Section: Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender, Partisanship, and Issue Gaps

Lizotte

2017

Anal Soc Iss & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A defining feature of American politics, including party identification, is the question of the proper role of government. Partisanship is a prevailing way that individuals organize their attitudes. Democrats should take the Democratic Party's positions, and Republicans should take the Republican Party's positions. Instead, people have conflicting considerations that shape their opinions. Given that gender is integral in structuring individuals' positions in society, it is reasonable to expect that gender differences might produce intraparty differences. This article establishes a gender gap in scope of government that transcends partisanship. Using the cumulative American National Election Study Data 1994Data -2008, I find strong evidence that for a number of issue areas, women are more supportive of an activist government than men of the same party. Preferences regarding the scope of government provide a coherent explanation for these observed gaps.

show abstract

The Impact of Elite Polarization on Partisan Ambivalence and Indifference

Cited by 49 publications

References 42 publications

Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context

Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context

How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization

Gender, Partisanship, and Issue Gaps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About