Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-66nw2 Total loading time: 0.297 Render date: 2021-11-27T10:12:25.444Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Abstract

How does democratic politics inform the interdisciplinary debate on the evolution of human co-operation and the social preferences (for example, trust, altruism and reciprocity) that support it? This article advances a theory of partisan trust discrimination in electoral democracies based on social identity, cognitive heuristics and interparty competition. Evidence from behavioral experiments in eight democracies show ‘trust gaps’ between co- and rival partisans are ubiquitous, and larger than trust gaps based on the social identities that undergird the party system. A natural experiment found that partisan trust gaps in the United States disappeared immediately following the killing of Osama bin Laden. But observational data indicate that partisan trust gaps track with perceptions of party polarization in all eight cases. Finally, the effects of partisanship on trust outstrip minimal group treatments, yet minimal-group effects are on par with the effects of most treatments for ascriptive characteristics in the literature. In sum, these findings suggest political competition dramatically shapes the salience of partisanship in interpersonal trust, the foundation of co-operation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

*

Department of Political Science, Georgia State University (email: rcarlin@gsu.edu); Department of Political Science, University of Mississippi (email: gjlove@olemiss.edu). The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from Georgia State University’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, Center for Human Rights and Democracy, and University Research Services Administration. Many thanks to our local collaborators: Allyson Benton, Fernanda Boidi, Abby Córdova, Alejandro Díaz-Domínguez, Estefania Domínguez, Pedro Magalhães, Sergio Martini, Robert Mattes, Álvaro Neira, Mauricio Olivares, Rosario Queirolo, Alexandra Searle, Mariano Torcal, Ludwig van Bedolla, Ivania Villa-Alta, and Daniel Young. For feedback on the project and drafts we thank Rosario Aguilar, Andy Baker, Ryan Bakker, Jason Barabas, Fernanda Boidi, James Cox, Christopher Dawes, Raymond Duch, Catherine Eckel, James Fowler, Ana Carolina Garriga, Jonathan Hartlyn, Timothy Hellwig, Cindy Kam, Josepsh Klesner, Reuben Kline, Peter Loewen, Neil Malhotra, Kristin Michelitch, Brian Paciotti, Lucio Renno, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, Rodolfo Sarsfield, Mitchell Seligson, Shane Singh, John Sholz, Mariano Torcal, Rick Wilson, Elizabeth Zechmeister, and participants in talks delivered at the Universidad Central, University of Georgia, Florida State University, Vanderbilt University, University of Mississippi, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, CIDE Mexico and New York University. All remaining errors are our own. Data replication sets are available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS, and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123415000526.

References

Alesina, Alberto, Devleeschauwer, Arnaud, Easterly, William, Kurlat, Sergio, and Wacziarg, Romain. 2003. Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth 8:155194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel. A., and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, James, and Petrie, Ragan. 2008. Beauty, Gender and Stereotypes: Evidence from Laboratory Experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology 29:7393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1974. The Limits of Organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Bahry, Donna, Kosolapov, Mikhail, Kozyreva, Polina, and Wilson, Rick K.. 2005. Ethnicity and Trust: Evidence from Russia. American Political Science Review 99:512532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banfield, Edward C. 1958. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano, and Mair, Peter. 1990. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berg, Joyce, Dickaut, John, and McCabe, Kevin. 1995. Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior 10:122142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1985. Prejudice, Categorization, and Particularization: From a Perceptual to a Rhetorical Approach. European Journal of Social Psychology 15:79103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornhorst, Fabian, Ichino, Andrea, Kirchkamp, Oliver, Schlag, Karl, and Winter, Eyal. 2010. Similarities and Differences When Building Trust: The Role of Cultures. Experimental Economics 13:260283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, and Gintis, Herbert. 2011. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and its Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1999. The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues 55:429444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B., and Campbell, Donald T.. 1976. Ethnocentrism and Intergroup Attitudes: East African Evidence. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Buchan, Nancy R., Croson, Rachel T.A., and Solnick, Sara. 2008. Trust and Gender: An Examination of Behavior and Beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68:466476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Justine. 2006. Racial Stereotypes, Stigma and Trust in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Economic Modeling 23:805821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cárdenas, Juan Camilo, Chong, Alberto, and Ñopo, Hugo. 2009. To What Extent do Latin Americans Trust, Reciprocate, and Cooperate? Evidence from Experiments in Six Latin American Countries. Economía 9:4594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, Ryan E., and Love, Gregory J.. 2013. The Politics of Interpersonal Trust and Reciprocity: An Experimental Approach. Political Behavior 35:4363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, Francis G., and Mair, Peter. 1984. Left–Right Political Scales: Some ‘Expert’ Judgments. European Journal of Political Research 12:7388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, Kanchan. 2007. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csukás, Csongor, Francalanza, Paulo, Kovács, Tamás, and Willinger, Marc. 2008. The Determinants of Trusting and Reciprocal Behavior: Evidence from an Intercultural Experiment. Journal of Economic Development 33:7195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuddy, Amy J.C., Fiske, Susan T., and Glick, Peter. 2007. A BIAS Map: Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:631648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddy, Amy J.C., Fiske, Susan T., Kwan, Virginia S.Y., Glick, Peter, Demoulin, Stephanie, Leyens, Jacques‐Philippe, Bond, Michael Harris, Croizet, Jean-Claude, Ellemers, Naomi, Sleebos, Ed, Tin Htun, Tin, Kim, Hyun-Jeong, Maio, Greg, Perry, Judi, Petkova, Kristina, Todorov, Valery, Rodríguez-Bailón, Rosa, Morales, Elena, Moya, Miguel, Palacios, Marisol, Smith, Vanessa, Perez, Rolando, Vala, Jorge, and Ziegler, Rene. 2009. Stereotype Content Model Across Cultures: Towards Universal Similarities and Some Differences. British Journal of Social Psychology 48:133.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1997. Toward Democracy – A Journey, Reflections: 1940-1997. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Government Studies Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2008. The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems Party System Polarization, its Measurement, and its Consequences. Comparative Political Studies 41:899920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delhey, Jan, Newton, Kenneth, and Welzel, Christian. 2011. How General is Trust in ‘Most People’? Solving the Radius of Trust Problem. American Sociological Review 76:786807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delton, Andrew W., Krasnow, Max M., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John. 2011. Evolution of Direct Reciprocity under Uncertainty Can Explain Human Generosity in One-Shot Encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:1333513340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, edited by James N., Druckman, Donald P., Green, James H., Kuklinski and Arthur Lupia, 4157. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., and Petrie, Ragan. 2011. Face Value. American Economic Review 101:14971513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., and Wilson, Rick K.. 2006. Internet Cautions: Experimental Games with Internet Partners. Experimental Economics 9:5366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esses, Victoria M., and Dovidio, John F.. 2002. The Role of Emotions in Determining Willingness to Engage in Intergroup Contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (9):12021214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, Fischbacher, Urs, von Rosenbladt, Bernhard, Schupp, Jürgen, and Wagner, Gert G.. 2003. A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining Trust and Trustworthiness by Integrating Behavioral Experiments into Representative Surveys, Discussion Paper No. 715. Bonn: IZA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fershtman, Chaim, and Gneezy, Uri. 2001. Discrimination in a Segmented Society: An Experimental Approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:351377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fershtman, Chaim, Gneezy, Uri, and Verboven, Frank. 2005. Discrimination and Nepotism: The Efficiency of the Anonymity Rule. Journal of Legal Studies 34:371396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J.C., and Glick, Peter. 2007. Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:7783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, Susan T. 1998. Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination. In Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edition, Volume 2, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (eds), 357411. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2007. Beyond the Self: Social Identity, Altruism, and Political Participation. Journal of Politics 69:813827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, Marcus, and Traünmuller, Richard. 2009. Spheres of Trust: An Empirical Analysis of the Foundations of Particularised and Generalised Trust. European Journal of Political Research 48:782803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, Matthew J., and Huber, John D.. 2000. Putting Parties in Their Place: Inferring Party Ideological Positions from Party Manifestos Data. American Journal of Political Science 44:94103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael. 1991. Proportionality, Disproportionality, and Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 10:3351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbarino, Ellen, and Slonim, Robert. 2009. The Robustness of Trust and Reciprocity Across a Heterogeneous U.S. Population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69:226240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., Laibson, David I., Scheinkman, José A., and Soutter, Christine L.. 2000. Measuring Trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:811846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, Roberto, Manzi, Jorge, Saiz, José L., Brewer, Marilynn, de Tezanos-Pinto, Pablo, Torres, David, Aravena, María Teresa, and Adulnate, Nerea. 2008. Interparty Attitudes in Chile: Coalitions as Superordinate Identities. Political Psychology 29:93118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. 1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91:481510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Erci. 1998. Macropartisanship: A Replication and Critique. American Political Science Review 92:883899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Steven. 1999. Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach. Political Psychology 20:393403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Haile, Daniel, Sadrieh, Abdolkarim, and Verbon, Harrie AA. 2008. Cross-Racial Envy and Underinvestment in South African Partnerships. Cambridge Journal of Economics 32:703724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 2006. Trust. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Harris, Lasana T., McClure, Samuel M., van den Bos, Wouter, Cohen, Jonathan D., and Fiske, Susan T.. 2007. Regions of the MPFC Differentially Tuned to Social and Nonsocial Affective Evaluation. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 7:309316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heit, Evan, and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2010. The Opposite of Republican: Polarization and Political Categorization. Cognitive Science 34:15031516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, Joseph, Ensminger, Jean, McElreath, Richard, Barr, Abigail, Barrett, Clark, Bolyanatz, Alexander, Camilo Cárdenas, Juan, Gurven, Michael, Gwako, Edwins, Henrich, Natalie, Lesorogol, Carolyn, Marlowe, Frank, Tracer, David, and Ziker, John. 2010. Markets, Religion, Community Size, and the Evolution of Fairness and Punishment. Science 327 (5972):14801484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Boyd, Robert, Bowles, Samuel, Camerer, Colin, Fehr, Ernst, and Gintis, Herbert, eds. 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33:61135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15:199236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1996[1651]. Leviathan: Revised Student Edition (Edited by Richard Tuck). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2001. From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory. Political Psychology 22:127156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1988. The Renaissance of Political Culture. American Political Science Review 82:12031230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2014. Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59:690707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, Olof, Mahmud, Minhaj, and Martinsson, Peter. 2009. Trust and Religion: Experimental Evidence from Rural Bangladesh. Economica 79 (303):462485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Noel D., and Mislin, Alexandra A.. 2011. Trust Games: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology 32:865889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Peter, and Tversky, Amos, eds. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2011. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3:220246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Freeze, Kevin. 2010. Programmatic Party System Structuration: Developing and Comparing Cross-National and Cross-Party Measures with a New Global Data Set. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 2–5 September.Google Scholar
Knack, Stephen, and Keefer, Philip. 1997. Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:12511288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Rod M., and Brewer, Marilynn B.. 1984. Effects of Group Identity on Resource Use in a Simulated Commons Dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:10441057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, Frank, McCabe, Kevin, Moll, Jorge, Kriegeskorte, Nikolaus, Zahn, Roland, Strenziok, Maren, Heinecke, Armin, and Grafman, Jordan. 2007. Neural Correlates of Trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (50):2008420089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lijphart, Arend. 1968. Typologies of Democratic Systems. Comparative Political Studies 1:344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, edited by Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, 164. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, Peter John. 2010. Affinity, Antipathy and Political Participation: How our Concern for Others Makes us Vote. Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (3):661687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Micheltich, Kristin. 2015. Does Electoral Competition Exacerbate Interethnic or Interpartisan Economic Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Market Price Bargaining. American Political Science Review 109:4361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J. 1993. Public Opinion and Heuristic Processing of Source Cues. Political Behavior 15:167192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naef, Michael, and Schupp, Jürgen. 2009. Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination, Discussion Paper No. 4087. Bonn: IZA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, Octavio Amorim, and Cox, Gary W.. 1997. Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties. American Journal of Political Science 41:149174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. Polarizing Cues. American Journal of Political Science 56:5266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North, Douglas C. 1990. A Transaction Cost Theory of Politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics 2:355367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes. UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2002. Bowling Together. The American Prospect, 18 January. Available from http://prospect.org/article/bowling-together-0, accessed 15 November 2013.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐First Century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30:137174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahn, Wendy. M. 1993. The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37:472496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, David G., Pfeiffer, Thomas, Dreber, Anna, Sheketoff, Rachel W., Wernerfeldt, Nils C., and Benkler, Yochai. 2009. Dynamic Remodeling of In-Group Bias During the 2008 Presidential Election. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (15):61876191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosas, Guillermo. 2005. The Ideological Organization of Latin American Legislative Parties: An Empirical Analysis of Elite Policy Preferences. Comparative Political Studies 38:824849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Bo, and Uslaner, Eric M.. 2005. All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics 58:4172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Denise M., Sitkin, Sim B., Burt, Ronald S., and Camerer, Colin. 1998. Not so Different After all: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review 23:393404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabright, Paul. 2010. The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life (Revised Edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, Muzafer. 1967. Group Conflict and Co-operation: Their Social Psychology. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel, 3347. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, Billig, Michael G., Bundy, R.P., and Flament, Claude. 1971. Social Categorization and Intergroup Behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 1:149178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1985. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In Bringing the State Back In, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, 169191. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torcal, Mariano, and Mainwaring, Scott. 2003. The Political Recrafting of Social Bases of Party Competition: Chile, 1973–95. British Journal of Political Science 33:5584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torcal, Mariano, and Martini, Sergio. 2014. Trust Across Political Conflicts: Evidence from a Survey-Experiment in Divided Societies. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Glasgow, Scotland, 3–6 September.Google Scholar
Turner, Joel. 2007. The Messenger Overwhelming the Message: Ideological Cues and Perceptions of Bias in Television News. Political Behavior 29:441464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1974. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185:11241131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uslaner, Eric M. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Validivieso, Patricio, and Villena-Roldán, Benjamín. 2014. Opening the Black Box of Social Capital Formation. American Political Science Review 108:121143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Bos, Wouter, van Dijk, Erik, Westenberg, Michiel, Rombouts, Serge A.R.B., and Crone, Eveline A.. 2009. What Motivates Repayment? Neural Correlates of Reciprocity in the Trust Game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 4:294304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, Mark E. 1999. Democratic Theory and Trust. In Democracy and Trust, edited by Mark E. Warren, 310345. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willinger, Marc, Keser, Claudia, Lohmann, Christopher, and Usunier J.-C, Jean-Claude. 2003. A Comparison of Trust and Reciprocity Between France and Germany: Experimental Investigation Based on the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Psychology 24:447466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Rick K., and Eckel, Catherine C.. 2006. Judging a Book by its Cover. Political Research Quarterly 59:189202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Rick K., and Eckel, Catherine C.. 2011. Trust and Social Exchange. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, edited by James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski and Arthur Lupia, 243257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Sam, and Wilson, Rick K.. 2007. The Dictator Game, Fairness and Ethnicity in Postwar Bosnia. American Journal of Political Science 51:655668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2011. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank (producer and distributor). http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Carlin and Love Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Carlin and Love supplementary material S1

Figures, Tables, and Text

Download Carlin and Love supplementary material S1(PDF)
PDF 645 KB
29
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Political Competition, Partisanship and Interpersonal Trust in Electoral Democracies
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? *