Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-hd9dq Total loading time: 0.507 Render date: 2022-09-26T01:41:40.314Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

LEONIE HUDDY*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
LILLIANA MASON*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
LENE AARØE*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
*
Leonie Huddy, Professor, Department of Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794–4392 (Leonie.Huddy@sunysb.edu)
Lilliana Mason, Lecturer, Hickman Hall, 89 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (lillianahall@gmail.com)
Lene Aarøe, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Government, Bartholins Allé 7, Building 1340, Room 233, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark (leneaaroe@ps.au.dk)

Abstract

Party identification is central to the study of American political behavior, yet there remains disagreement over whether it is largely instrumental or expressive in nature. We draw on social identity theory to develop the expressive model and conduct four studies to compare it to an instrumental explanation of campaign involvement. We find strong support for the expressive model: a multi-item partisan identity scale better accounts for campaign activity than a strong stance on subjectively important policy issues, the strength of ideological self-placement, or a measure of ideological identity. A series of experiments underscore the power of partisan identity to generate action-oriented emotions that drive campaign activity. Strongly identified partisans feel angrier than weaker partisans when threatened with electoral loss and more positive when reassured of victory. In contrast, those who hold a strong and ideologically consistent position on issues are no more aroused emotionally than others by party threats or reassurances. In addition, threat and reassurance to the party's status arouse greater anger and enthusiasm among partisans than does a threatened loss or victory on central policy issues. Our findings underscore the power of an expressive partisan identity to drive campaign involvement and generate strong emotional reactions to ongoing campaign events.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

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

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2006. “Exploring the Bases of Partisanship in the American Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology.” Political Research Quarterly 59: 175–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramson, Paul R., and Aldrich, John H.. 1982. “The Decline of Electoral Participation in America.” American Political Science Review 76 (3): 502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreychick, Michael R., & Gill, Michael J.. 2009. “Ingroup identity Moderates the Impact of Social Explanations on Intergroup Attitudes: External Explanations Are Not Inherently Prosocial.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35 (12): 1632–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2013. “The Effects of Need for Cognition and Need for Affect on Partisan Evaluations.” Political Psychology 34 (1): 2342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2009. “A New Partisan Voter.” Journal of Politics 71 (1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Verba, Sidney, and Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review, 89 (2): 271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 496515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin, Huddy, Leonie, Hartman, Todd, Mason, Lily, and Weber, Christ. 2013. “Socially-Mediated Internet Surveys (SMIS): Recruiting Participants for Online Experiments.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (4): 775–84.Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 808–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, David J., Powell, Caitlin A. J., Schurtz, David Ryan, and Smith, Richard H.. 2009. “Politics, Schadenfreude, and Ingroup Identification: The Sometimes Happy Thing about a Poor Economy and Death.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 635–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancey, Logan, and Goren, Paul. 2010. “Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate.” American Journal of Political Science 54: 686–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert, and Tedin, Kent. 2010. American Public Opinion. New York: Pearson/Longman.Google Scholar
Ethier, Kathleen A., and Deaux, Kay. 1994. “Negotiating Social Identity When Contexts Change: Maintaining Identification and Responding to Threat.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 67: 243–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Levendusky, Matthew S.. 2006. “Disconnected: The Political Class versus the People.” In Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics, eds. Nivola, Pietro S. and Brady, David W.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 4971.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Kam, Cindy. 2007. “Beyond the Self: Social Identity, Altruism and Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 813–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E.. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” American Political Science Review 77 (4): 957–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frijda, Nico H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., and Washington, Ebonya. 2010. “Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 720–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identity of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven. 2002. “The Social-Psychological Measurement of Partisanship.” Political Behavior 24 (3):171–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Steven. 2004. “Social Identity Theory and Political Identification.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (1): 138–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendyk, Eric W., and Banks, Antoine J.. 2013. “Emotional Rescue: How Affect Helps Partisans Overcome Collective Action Problems.” Political Psychology 35 (3): 359–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbridge, Laurel, and Malhotra, Neil. 2011. “Electoral Incentives and Partisan Conflict in Congress: Evidence from Survey Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 494510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2001. “From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory.” Political Psychology 22: 127–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2013. “From Group Identity to Political Commitment and Cohesion.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David O., and Jervis, Robert. New York: Oxford University Press, 737–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Feldman, Stanley, and Cassese, Erin. 2007. “On the Distinct Political Effects of Anxiety and Anger.” In The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, eds. Neuman, W. Russell, Marcus, George E., MacKuen, Michael, and Crigler, Ann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 202–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Khatib, Nadia. 2007. “American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 6377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly (September 17).Google Scholar
Izard, Carroll E. 1993. “Four Systems for Emotion Activation: Cognitive and Noncognitive Processes.” Psychological Review 100 (1): 6890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavine, Howard, Johnston, Christopher, and Steenbergen, Marco. 2012. The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Eric, Sides, John, and Farrell, Henry. 2010. “Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Jennifer S., and Tiedens, Larissa Z.. 2006. “Portrait of the Angry Decision Maker: How Appraisal Tendencies Shape Anger's Influence on Cognition.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19: 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Jacoby, William G., Norpoth, Helmut, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 2009. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2013. “Party Brands and Partisanship: Theory with Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Argentina.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 4964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Diane M., Devos, Thierry, and Smith, Eliot R.. 2000. “Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (4): 602–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mael, Fred A., and Tetrick, Lois E.. 1992. “Identifying Organizational Identification.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 52 (4): 813–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E., Neuman, W. Russell, and MacKuen, Michael. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2014. “I Disrespectfully Agree: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Behavioral and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12089.Google Scholar
Miller, Patrick R. 2011. “The Emotional Citizen: Emotion as a Function of Political Sophistication.” Political Psychology 32 (4): 575600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 5266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenstone, Steven, and Hansen, John. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Rydell, Robert J., Mackie, Diane M., Maitner, Angela T., Claypool, Heather M., Ryan, Melissa J., and Smith, Eliot R.. 2008. “Arousal, Processing, and Risk Taking: Consequences of Intergroup Anger.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (8): 1141–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, Bernd, and Klandermans, Bert. 2001. “Politicized Collective Identity: A Social Psychological Analysis.” American Psychologist 56: 319–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, Bernd, Loewy, Michael, Stürmer, Stefan, Weber, Ulrike, Freytag, Peter, Habig, Corinna, Kampmeier, Claudia, and Spahlinger, Peter. 1998. “Collective Identification and Social Movement Participation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 646–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Heather J., Cronin, Tracey, and Kessler, Thomas. 2008. “Anger, Fear, or Sadness: Faculty Members’ Emotional Reactions to Collective Pay Disadvantage.” Political Psychology 29 (2): 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Stiglitz, Edward H.. 2012. The Reputational Premium. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. Austin, W. G. and Worchel, S.. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 3347.Google Scholar
Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2009. Who Counts as an American? New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, John C., Hogg, Michael A., Oakes, Penelope J., Stephen D. Reicher, and Wetherell, Margaret S.. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Brader, Ted, Groenendyk, Eric W., Gregorowicz, Krysha, and Hutchings, Vincent L.. 2011. “Election Night's Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 156–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zomeren, Martijn, Postmes, Tom, and Spears, Russell. 2008. “Toward an Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-Psychological Perspectives.” Psychological Bulletin 134 (4): 504–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Zomeren, Martijn, Spears, Russell, and Leach, Colin Wayne. 2008. “Exploring Psychological Mechanisms of Collective Action: Does Relevance of Group Identity Influence How People Cope with Collective Disadvantage?British Journal of Social Psychology 47 (2): 353–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

HUDDY et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Appendix

Download HUDDY et al. supplementary material(File)
File 339 KB
383
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *