Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Believe It or Not? Partisanship, Preferences, and the Credibility of Campaign Promises

  • Pablo Fernandez-Vazquez (a1) and Alexander G. Theodoridis (a2)

Abstract

We use a novel survey experiment with a broadly representative sample to reveal an important phenomenon in voter integration of campaign communications: preference-mediated partisan motivation. When evaluating the credibility of candidate position changes on minimum wage policy (a readily quantifiable and salient issue domain), partisans do not take a new stance at face value, apply universal skepticism, or simply afford more credibility to co-partisans. Instead, they process a candidate’s stance through an interaction between the voter’s partisan allegiance and their own policy preference. Partisans update more when a co-partisan moves closer to them than when the candidate shifts away from them. The opposite pattern emerges with the other party’s candidates: partisans tend to be more receptive if the candidate moves away from them. This feature of campaign message acceptance has profound implications for political communication and our understanding of partisan cognition.

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All

We thank Steve Ansolabehere, Vin Arceneaux, Larry Bartels, Toby Bolsen, Henry Brady, Jack Citrin, Jamie Druckman, Nick Eubank, Stephen Goggin, John Henderson, Travis Johnston, Cindy Kam, Kevin Mullinix, Steve Nicholson, David Nickerson, Eric Schickler, Paul Sniderman, Rob Van Houweling, Julie Wronski and the Vanderbilt University Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. This research was supported by generous funding from the University of California, Merced, and supported by the National Science Foundation, Award #1559125. The authors have no conflicts of interest pertaining to this research. The data, code, online supplement, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6JGSZP.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Achen, Christopher H. and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ansolabehere, S. 2017. “Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2016: Common Content.[Computer File] Release 1: February 2017.”.
Arceneaux, Kevin and Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2017. Taming Intuition: How Reflection Minimizes Partisan Reasoning and Promotes Democratic Accountability. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Bartels, L. M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24(2):117–50.
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10(3):571–97.
Bolsen, Toby, Druckman, James N. and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior 36(2):235–62.
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, William E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York, NY: Wiley.
Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M and Miller, Michael G. 2016. “When is Changing Policy Positions Costly for Politicians? Experimental Evidence.” Political Behavior 38(2):455–84.
Druckman, James N. 2012. “The Politics of Motivation.” Critical Review 24(2):199216.
Druckman, James N. and Bolsen, Toby. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication 61(4):659–88.
Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo and Theodoridis, Alexander G.. 2019. “Replication Data for: Believe It or Not? Partisanship, Preferences, and the Credibility of Campaign Promises.” Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6JGSZP
Glazer, Amihai. 1990. “The Strategy of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 84(1):237–41.
Goggin, Stephen A. and Theodoridis, Alexander G.. 2017. “Disputed Ownership: Parties, Issues, and Traits in the Minds of Voters.” Political Behavior 39(3):675702.
Greene, S. 1999. “Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach.” Political Psychology 20(2):393403.
Halberstam, Yosh and Montagnes, B. Pablo. 2015. “Presidential Coattails Versus the Median Voter: Senator Selection in US Elections.” Journal of Public Economics 121:4051.
Heider, Fritz. 1946. “Attitudes and Cognitive Organization.” The Journal of Psychology 21(1):107–12.
Heit, Evan and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2016. “Missing the Party: Political Categorization and Reasoning in the Absence of Party Label Cues.” Topics in Cognitive Science 8(3):697714.
Henderson, John A. and Theodoridis, Alexander G.. 2017. “Seeing Spots: Partisanship, Negativity and the Conditional Receipt of Campaign Advertisements.” Political Behavior 40(4): 965987.
Hersh, Eitan D. and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2013. “Targeted Campaign Appeals and the Value of Ambiguity.” The Journal of Politics 75(2):520–34.
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana and Aarøe, Lene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109(1):117.
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3):405–31.
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):690707.
Jerit, Jennifer and Barabas, Jason. 2012. “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment.” The Journal of Politics 74(3):672–84.
Karol, David. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Klar, Samara. 2014. “Partisanship in a Social Setting.” American Journal of Political Science 58(3):687704.
Krueger, Joachim and Clement, Russell W.. 1994. “The Truly False Consensus Effect: An Ineradicable and Egocentric Bias in Social Perception.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(4):596610.
Leeper, Thomas J. and Slothuus, Rune. 2014. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation.” Political Psychology 35(S1):129–56.
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2013. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lerman, Amy E. and Acland, Daniel. 2018. “United in States of Dissatisfaction: Confirmation Bias Across the Partisan Divide.” American Politics Research. doi: 10.1177/1532673X18799274
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.
Miratrix, Luke W., Sekhon, Jasjeet S., Theodoridis, Alexander G. and Campos, Luis F.. 2018. “Worth Weighting? How to Think About and Use Weights in Survey Experiments.” Political Analysis 26(3): 275291.
Montagnes, Brendan Pablo and Rogowski, Jon C.. 2015. “Testing Core Predictions of Spatial Models: Platform Moderation and Challenger Success.” Political Science Research and Methods 3(3):619–40.
Mullinix, Kevin J. 2016. “Partisanship and Preference Formation: Competing Motivations, Elite Polarization, and Issue Importance.” Political Behavior 38(2):383411.
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1):5266.
Page, Benjamin I. 1976. “The Theory of Political Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 70(3):742–52.
Rogowski, J. C. and Tucker, P. D.. 2018. Moderate, Extreme, or Both? How Voters Respond to Ideologically Unpredictable Candidates. Electoral Studies, (51) February 2018, Pages 83–92.
Ross, Lee, Greene, David and House, Pamela. 1977. “The” False Consensus Effect”: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(3):279301.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66(2):555–68.
Sniderman, Paul M. and Stiglitz, Edward H.. 2012. The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2015. “Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 59(4):841–54.
Taber, Charles S. and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3):755–69.
Theodoridis, Alexander George. 2013. “Implicit Political Identity.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46(03):545–9.
Theodoridis, A.G. 2017a. “2016 University of California, Merced Cooperative Congressional Election Study Module. [Computer File].”
Theodoridis, Alexander G. 2017b. “Me, Myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and Political Cognition through the Lens of Implicit Identity.” The Journal of Politics 79(4):1253–67.
Tomz, M. and Van Houweling, R. P.. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103(01):8398.
Tomz, Michael and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2012. Candidate Repositioning. Stanford University and UC Berkeley.
Tomz, Michael and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2014. Political Repositioning: A Conjoint Analysis. Stanford University and UC Berkeley.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Fernandez-Vazquez and Theodoridis Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
PDF
Supplementary materials

Fernandez-Vazquez and Theodoridis supplementary material
Online Appendix

 PDF (304 KB)
304 KB

Believe It or Not? Partisanship, Preferences, and the Credibility of Campaign Promises

  • Pablo Fernandez-Vazquez (a1) and Alexander G. Theodoridis (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed