Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-kpkbf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-28T10:43:25.771Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral Power: How Public Opinion on Culture War Issues Shapes Partisan Predispositions and Religious Orientations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

PAUL GOREN  and
CHRISTOPHER CHAPP
PAUL GOREN*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
CHRISTOPHER CHAPP*
Affiliation:
St. Olaf College
*
Paul Goren is Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (pgoren@umn.edu).
Christopher Chapp is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057 (chapp@stolaf.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Party-driven and religion-driven models of opinion change posit that individuals revise their positions on culture war issues to ensure consonance with political and religious predispositions. By contrast, models of issue-driven change propose that public opinion on cultural controversies lead people to revise their partisan and religious orientations. Using data from four panel studies covering the period 1992–2012, we pit the party- and religion-based theories of opinion change against the issue-based model of change. Consistent with the standard view, party and religion constrain culture war opinion. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, but consistent with our novel theory, opinions on culture war issues lead people to revise their partisan affinities and religious orientations. Our results imply that culture war attitudes function as foundational elements in the political and religious belief systems of ordinary citizens that match and sometimes exceed partisan and religious predispositions in terms of motivating power.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 110 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

We presented a draft of this article at the 2015 Midwest Political Science Association's annual meeting in Chicago, IL. We thank the four reviewers and Valerie Martinez-Ebers for their astute commentary on how to strengthen our article. We are also grateful to David Campbell, Howard Lavine, Geoffrey Layman, Lilliana Mason, Matt Motta, Phil Shively, and Michael Tesler for their thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this work. Thanks also to Ron Asheton and James Williamson. Note finally that the authors contributed equally to this article.

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1995. “It's Abortion, Stupid: Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 57 (1): 176–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Chris. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69 (4): 1218–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 718–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, Todd, Layman, Geoffery C., Campbell, David E., and Green, John C.. 2013. “Religious Group Cues and Citizen Policy Attitudes in the United States.” Politics and Religion 6 (2): 235–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2003. “Democracy with Attitudes.” In Electoral Democracy, eds. MacKuen, Michael and Rabinowitz, George. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 48–82.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G., Gerber, Alan S., Hill, Seth J., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2015. “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 519–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1970. “Attitudes and Non-attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, Edward R.. Reading, MN: Addison-Wesley, 168–90.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E., and Markus, Gregory B.. 1979. “ Plus ça Change . . . : The New CPS Election Study Panel.” The American Political Science Review 73 (1): 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Jelen, Ted G., and Wilcox, Clyde. 1994. “Issue Voting in U.S. Senate Elections: The Abortion Issue in 1990.” Congress and the Presidency 21 (2): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancey, Logan, and Goren, Paul. 2010. “Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 686–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2009. The Political Influence of Churches. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E.. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” American Political Science Review 77 (4): 957–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. “Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts.” American Political Science Review 104 (1): 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Jesse, Haidt, Jonathan, Koleva, Sena, Motyl, Matt, Iyer, Ravi, Wojick, Sean P., and Ditto, Peter H.. 2013. “Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47: 55–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Google Scholar
Guth, James L., Green, John C., Smidt, Corwin E., Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Poloma, Margaret M.. 1997. The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy. Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J., and Weiler, Jonathan D.. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R.. 2014. Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Highton, Benjamin, and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “The Long-Term Dynamics of Partisanship and Issue Orientations.” Journal of Politics 73 (1): 202–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hout, Michael, and Fischer, Claude S.. 2014. “Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession.” Sociological Science 1: 423–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, James David. 1992. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jelen, Ted. 2009. “Religion and American Public Opinion: Social Issues.” In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics, eds. Smidt, Corwin E., Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Guth, James L.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 217–42.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard G. 2006. “Party Identification: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences?” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 329–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killian, Mitchell, and Wilcox, Clyde. 2008. “Do Abortion Attitudes Lead to Party Switching?” Political Research Quarterly 61 (4): 561–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohut, Andrew, Green, John C., Keeter, Scott, and Toth, Robert C.. 2000. The Diminishing Divide: Religion's Changing Role in American Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Koleva, Spassena P., Graham, Jesse, Iyer, Ravi, Ditto, Peter H., and Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. “Tracing the Threads: How Five Moral Concerns (especially Purity) Help Explain Culture War Attitudes.” Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2): 184–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Petty, Richard E.. 1995. “Attitude Strength: An Overview.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, eds. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, Jon A.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–25.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Green, John C.. 2006. “Wars and Rumours of Wars: The Contexts of Cultural Conflict in American Political Behavior. British Journal of Political Science 36: 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leege, David C. 1993. “Religion and Politics in Theoretical Perspective.” In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, eds. Leege, David C. and Kellstedt, Lyman. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3–25.Google Scholar
Leege, David C., Wald, Kenneth D., Krueger, Brian S., and Mueller, Paul D.. 2002. The Politics of Cultural Differences: Social Change and Voter Mobilization Strategies in the Post-New Deal Period. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel. 2012. Follow the Leader: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindaman, Kara, and Haider-Markel, Donald P.. 2002. “Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (1): 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxley, Douglas R., Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Miller, Jennifer L., Scalora, Mario, Hatemi, Peter K., and Hibbing, John R.. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits.” Science 321 (5896): 1667–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrikios, Stratos. 2008. “American Republican Religion? Disentangling the Causal Link between Religion and Politics in the US.” Political Behavior 30 (3): 367–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., and Campbell, David. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
Rathbun, Brian C., Kertzer, Joshua D., Reifler, Jason, Goren, Paul, and Scotto, Thomas J.. 2016. “Taking Foreign Policy Personally: Personal Values and Foreign Policy Attitudes.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (1): 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O. 2001. “The Role of Affect in Symbolic Politics.” In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. Kuklinski, James H.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 14–40.Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin B., Oxley, Douglas, Hibbing, Matthew V., Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 2011. “Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations.” PLOS One 6 (10): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniderman, Paul M., and Stiglitz, Edward H.. 2012. The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Terrizzi, John A., Shook, Natalie, and Ventis, W. Larry. 2010. “Disgust: A Predictor of Social Conservatism and Prejudicial Attitudes Toward Homosexuals.” Personality and Individual Differences 49 (6): 587–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesler, Michael. 2015. “Priming Predispositions and Changing Policy Positions: An Account of When Mass Opinion is Primed or Changed.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 806–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D., and Glover, Graham B.. 2007. “Theological Perspectives on Gay Unions: The Uneasy Marriage of Religion and Politics.” In The Politics of Same Sex Marriage, eds. Rimmerman, Craig A. and Wilcox, Clyde. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 105–130.Google Scholar
Welch, Michael R., Leege, David C., Wald, Kenneth D., and Kellstedt, Lyman. 1993. “Are the Sheep Hearing the Shepherds? Cue Perceptions, Congregational Responses, and Political Communication Processes.” In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, eds. Leege, David C. and Kellstedt, Lyman A.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 235–254.Google Scholar
Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Goren and Chapp supplementary material

Online Appendices

Download Goren and Chapp supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 917 KB