Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:27:47.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisan Affiliation and the Evaluation of Non-Prototypical Candidates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2018

Alexander W. Severson
Alexander W. Severson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Florida State University, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA, e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], Twitter: @awseverson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ideologically impure candidates—RINOs and DINOs—risk losing the endorsement of their fellow copartisans. However, which copartisans? In this article, I assess how party affiliation and the strength of partisan affiliation condition the evaluation of ideologically impure, non-prototypical candidates. Using a nationally representative survey experiment, I present evidence that while partisans negatively evaluate non-prototypical copartisans, there is not a consistent relationship between strength of identification and the degree of punitiveness. Moreover, candidate non-prototypicality causes convergence in candidate support between Republicans and Democrats. My results provide evidence that nominal partisan affiliation is by itself insufficient to save an ideologically non-prototypical candidate from the rebuke of fellow copartisans and thus that the “in-name-only” charge holds some weight.

Keywords

Partisanshipprototypicalitycandidate evaluationsurvey experiment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Summer 2018 , pp. 121 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and The Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69 (4): 1218–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2009. Guide to the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Harvard University Typescript.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?” Political Behavior 30 (2): 139–60.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F. and Leary, Mark R.. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497–529.Google Scholar
Boudreau, Cheryl and MacKenzie, Scott A.. 2014. “Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 48–62.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carpini, Michael X. Delli and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ciuk, David J. and Yost, Berwood A.. 2016. “The Effects of Issue Salience, Elite Influence, and Policy Content on Public Opinion.” Political Communication 33 (2): 328–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston and Feldman, Stanley. 1989. “Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes.” American Journal of Political Science: 912–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher and Stimson, James A.. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. 1976. “The Voting Decision: Instrumental and Expressive Aspects.” The Journal of Politics 38 (2): 390–413.Google Scholar
Gass, Nick and Strauss, Daniel. 2015. “Jim Webb Drops out of Democratic Race.” Politico (October 20). (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/webb-dropping-out-214952).Google Scholar
Graham, Jesse, Haidt, Jonathan, and Nosek, Brian A.. 2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (5): 1029–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven. 1999. “Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach.” Political Psychology 20 (2): 393–403.Google Scholar
Hais, Sarah C., Hogg, Michael A., and Duck, Julie M.. 1997. “Self-Categorization and Leadership: Effects of Group Prototypicality and Leader Stereotypicality.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (10): 1087–99.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. 2000. “Social Categorization, Depersonalization, and Group Behavior.” Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes: 56–85.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. and Reid, Scott A.. 2006. “Social Identity, SelfCategorization, and The Communication of Group Norms.” Communication Theory 16 (1): 7–30.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. and Terry, Deborah I.. 2000. “Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts.” Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 121–40.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. 2001. “A Social Identity Theory of Leadership.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (3): 184–200.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana, and Aarøe, Lene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 690–707.Google Scholar
Kiley, Jocelyn. 2015. “A Clinton Candidacy: Voters’ Early Impressions.” Pew Research Center (April 10). (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/a-clinton-candidacy-voters-early-impressions/).Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kleef, Gerben A., et al. 2007. “Group Member Prototypicality and Intergroup Negotiation: How One’s Standing in the Group Affects Negotiation Behaviour.” British Journal of Social Psychology 46 (1): 129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. “I Disrespectfully Agree: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128–45.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John Richard. 2009. “Measuring Party Support: Leaners are Not Independents.” Electoral Studies 28 (4): 562–72.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2014. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research Center (June 12). (www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/).Google Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 472–496.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael T. and Branscombe, Nyla R.. 2001. “The Good, The Bad, and The Manly: Threats to One’s Prototypicality and Evaluations of Fellow In-Group Members.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37 (6): 510–7.Google Scholar
Severson, Alexander. 2017. Replication Data for Partisan Affiliation and The Evaluation of Non-Prototypical Candidates, Version 3. Harvard Dataverse. doi: 10.7910/DVN/HO2KICGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ben. 2016. “Is Donald Trump a Pragmatist?” National Review (November 16). (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442221/donald-trump-pragmatist-not-conservative).Google Scholar
Smith, Eliot R. and Zarate, Michael A.. 1990. “Exemplar and Prototype Use in Social Categorization.” Social Cognition 8 (3): 243–62.Google Scholar
Steinel, W., Van Kleef, G. A., Van Knippenberg, D., Hogg, M. A., Homan, A. C., and Moffitt, G. 2010. “How Intragroup Dynamics Affect Behavior in Intergroup Conflict: The Role of Group Norms, Prototypicality, and Need to Belong.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13 (6): 779–794.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C.. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In Austin, W. and Worchel, S. (Eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
Turner, John C. 1978. “Social Categorization and Social Discrimination in the Minimal Group Paradigm.” In Tajfel, H. (Eds.) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (101–40). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Yokley, Eli. 2017. “Poll: Voters Content With Party Stance but Want Ideologically Pure Candidates.” Morning Consult, Politico. (September 19). (http://www.morningconsult.com/2017/09/19/poll-voters-content-party-stance-want-ideologically-pure-candidates/).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Severson Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HO2KIC
Link