Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T07:30:20.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negative Partisanship in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2022

Agustina Haime Open the ORCID record for Agustina Haime [Opens in a new window]  and
Francisco Cantú
Agustina Haime
Affiliation:
Francisco Cantú is an associate professor of political science at the University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. fcantu10@uh.edu.
Francisco Cantú
Affiliation:
Francisco Cantú is an associate professor of political science at the University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. fcantu10@uh.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on comparative partisanship has demonstrated the low rates of party identification in Latin America. Such low rates are commonly interpreted as a sign of citizens’ disengagement with parties and democracy in the region. This article revisits this interpretation by considering voters’ adverse affection toward a party, or negative partisanship. It shows that examining the negative side of partisanship can help us develop a clearer perspective on the partisan linkages in the electorate. To support this claim, this study analyzes an original conjoint experiment in Argentina and Mexico, as well as two other public opinion surveys fielded in Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador. The study presents empirical evidence indicating that negative partisanship helps voters without an attachment to a party to distinguish themselves from nonpartisans, is independent of positive partisanship, and is different from a general distrust of the democratic system.

Keywords

PartiespartisanshipelectionsLatin Americapolitical behavior

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 72 - 92
Copyright
© The Authors 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Miami

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: Authors Agustina Haime and Francisco Cantú declare none.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Webster, Steven. 2016. The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century. Electoral Studies 41: 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar, Rosario, Hughes, Alex D., and Gell-Redman, Micah. 2019. Phenotypic Preference in Mexican Migrants: Evidence from a Random Household Survey. Political Behavior 41: 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Andy, Barry Ames, Anand E. Sokhey, and Lucio R. Rennó. 2016. The Dynamics of Partisan Identification when Party Brands Change: The Case of the Workers Party in Brazil. Journal ofPolitics 78, 1: 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Joseph O’Brian, and Smith, Buster. 2009. None Too Simple: Examining Issues of Religious Nonbelief and Nonbelonging in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48, 4: 719–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banister, Emma N., and Hogg, Margaret K.. 2001. Mapping the Negative Self: From “So Not Me” To “Just Not Me.” Advances in Consumer Research 28: 242–48.Google Scholar
Bankert, Alexa. 2021. Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections. Political Behavior 43: 1467–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., Bratslavsky, Ellen, Finkenauer, Catrin, and Vohs, Kathleen D.. 2001. Bad Is Stronger than Good. Review of General Psychology 5, 4: 323–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, Michael, Hainmueller, Jens, and Margalit, Yotam. 2017. Policy Design and Domestic Support for International Bailouts. European Journal of Political Research 56, 4: 864–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, John A., and Seligson, Mitchell A.. 2009. The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America: Political Support and Democracy in Eight Nations. Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1998. Intergroup Relations. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Daniel, T. Gilbert, Susan, T. Fiske, and Gardner, Lindzey. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1999. The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues 55, 3: 429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 2011. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory: Its History and Development. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, ed. Paul, A. M. Van Lange, Arie W. Kruglanski, and E. Tory Higgins. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlin, Ryan E. 2006. The Socioeconomic Roots of Support for Democracy and the Quality in Latin America. Revista de Ciencia Política 26, 1: 48–66.Google Scholar
Carlin, Ryan E., and Singer, Matthew M.. 2011. Support for Polyarchy in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies 44, 11: 1500–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruana, Nicholas J., Michael McGregor, R., and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2015. The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science 48, 4: 771–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cikara, Mina, Botvinich, Matthew M., and Fiske, Susan T.. 2011. Us Versus Them: Social Identity Shapes Neural Responses to Intergroup Competition and Harm. Psychological Science 22, 3: 306–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Mollie J., Lupu, Noam, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2017. The Political Culture of Democracy in the Americas, 2016/17: A Comparative Study of Democracy and Governance. Technical Report. Nashville: Americas Barometer.Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1969. Of Time and Partisan Stability. Comparative Political Studies 2: 139–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and Weldon, Steven. 2007. Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization. Party Politics 13, 2: 179–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukerich, Janet M., Kramer, Roderick, and McLean Parks, Judi. 1998. The Dark Side of Organizational Identification. In Identity in Organizations, ed. David, A. Whetten and Paul, C. Godfrey. London: Sage. 245–56.Google Scholar
Elsbach, Kimberly. 1998. The Process of Social Identification: With What Do We Identify? In Identity in Organizations, ed. David, A. Whetten and Paul, C. Godfrey. London: Sage. 232–37.Google Scholar
Elsbach, Kimberly D., and Bhattacharya, C. B.. 2001. Defining Who You Are By What You’re Not: Organizational Disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science 12, 4: 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E. 1995. Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., and Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1991. Party Identification and Participation in Collective Political Action. Journal of Politics 53, 2: 339–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franchino, Fabio, and Zucchini, Francesco. 2015. Voting in a Multi-Dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 2: 221–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Ong, Elvin. 2019. Committed or Conditional Democrats? Opposition Dynamics in Electoral Autocracies. American Journal of Political Science 63, 4: 948–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garry, John. 2007. Making “Party Identification” More Versatile: Operationalising the Concept for the Multiparty Setting. Electoral Studies 26, 2: 346–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidron, Noam, Adams, James, and Horne, Will. 2020. American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2007. Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation: Modifications and Extensions. Political Behavior 29, 3: 305—25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Citrin, Jack. 1994a. Measurement Error and the Structure of Attitudes: Are Positive and Negative Judgments Opposites? American Journal of Political Science 38, 1: 256—81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Kenneth F. 2011. Campaign Persuasion and Nascent Partisanship in Mexico’s New Democracy. American Journal of Political Science 55, 2: 398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Kenneth F. 2021. Money Can’t Buy You Love: Partisan Responses to Vote-Buying Offers in Modern Democracy. Working Paper. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Hagopian, Frances. 1998. Democracy and Political Representation in Latin America in the 1990s: Pause, Reorganization, or Decline? In Fault Lines of Democracy in Post-Transition Latin America, ed. Agüero, Felipe and Stark, Jeffrey. Coral Gables: North-South Center Press, University of Miami. 99–143.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2015. The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes Toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59, 3: 529–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hangartner, Dominik, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2015. Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments Against Real-World Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences 112, 8: 2395–2400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2013. Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis 22, 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselmayer, Martin, Hirsch, Lisa, and Jenny, Marcelo. 2020. Love Is Blind: Partisanship and Perception of Negative Campaign Messages in a Multiparty System. Political Research Exchange 2, 1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J., and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2015. Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Margaret K., and Banister, Emma N.. 2001. Dislikes, Distastes and the Undesired Self: Conceptualising and Exploring the Role of the Undesired End State in Consumer Experience. Journal of Marketing Research 17: 73–104.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Liliana, and Aaroe, Lene. 2015. Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity. American Political Science Review 109, 1: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President’s Party. American Political Science Review 71, 1: 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiewet de Jonge, Chad P. 2016. Should Researchers Abandon Questions About Democracy? Evidence from Latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly 80, 3: 694–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenderink, Peter M. 2014. Your Most Unhappy Consumers Are Your Greatest Source of Learning: The Effects of Avoidance Type, Company Characteristics, and Consumer Characteristics on Brand Hate. Master’s thesis, University of Twente.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R. 1985. Two Explanations for Negativity Effects in Political Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 29, 1: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudent, Hazel. 1944. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Jacoby, William G., Norpoth, Helmut, and Weisberg, Herbert F.. 2008. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, Rogowski, Ronald, and Kent Weaver, R.. 1993. Separation of Powers and Cleavage Management. In Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, ed. Bert, A. Rockman and Weaver. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 302—44.Google Scholar
Lupton, Robert N., and Jacoby, William G.. 2016. The Reliability of the ANES Feeling Thermometers: An Optimistic Assessment. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 7—9.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2015. Voter Partisanship in Latin America. In The Latin American Voter, ed. Ryan, E. Carlin, Singer, Matthew, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 226–45.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2016. Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam, Oliveros, Virginia, and Schiumerini, Luis. 2019. Toward a Theory of Campaigns and Voters in Developing Democracies. In Campaigns and Voters in Developing Democracies, ed. Lupu, Oliveros, and Schiumerini. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maggiotto, Michael A, and Piereson, James E. 1977. Partisan Identification and Electoral Choice: The Hostility Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 21, 4: 74567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 2018. Party System Institutionalization, Predictability, and Democracy. In Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse, ed. Mainwaring. New York: Cambridge University Press. 71–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy. 1995. Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America. In Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring and Scully. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Zoco, Edurne. 2007. Political Sequences and the Stabilization of Interparty Competition. Party Politics 13, 2: 155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Liliana. 2015. “I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59, 1: 128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Sabrina Jasmin. 2017. How Negative Partisanship Affects Voting Behavior in Europe: Evidence from an Analysis of 17 European Multi-Party Systems with Proportional Voting. Research & Politics 4, 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016686636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, Jennifer, and Murat Somer, 2019. Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681, 1: 234–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, Mike, and Noël, Alain. 2014. The Forgotten Side of Partisanship. Comparative Political Studies 47, 7: 1022–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meléndez, Carlos, and Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal. 2017. Political Identities: The Missing Link in the Study of Populism. Party Politics 25, 4: 520–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Junn, Jane. 1998. Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Bradley M. 1991. European Party Loyalties Revisited. American Political Science Review 85, 3: 751–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Hannah M. 2020. Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09658-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth M. 2004. Changing Course in Latin America: Party Systems in the Neoliberal Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Mishler, William. 1996. Testing the Churchill Hypothesis: Popular Support for Democracy and Its Alternatives. Journal of Public Policy 16, 1: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Mishler, William. 1998. Negative and Positive Party Identification in Post-Communist Countries. Electoral Studies 17, 2: 217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, Paul, and Royzman, Edward B.. 2001. Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5, 4: 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salinas, Eduardo, and Booth, John A.. 2011. Micro-social and Contextual Sources of Democratic Attitudes in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America 3, 1: 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David J., and Zucco, Cesar. 2018. Partisans, Antipartisans, and Nonpartisans: Voting Behavior in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligson, Mitchell A. 2008. The Rise of Populism and the Left: Challenge to Democratic Consolidation? In Challenges to Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from the AmericasBarometer 2006–07. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Shafranek, Richard M. 2019. Political Considerations in Nonpolitical Decisions: A Conjoint Analysis of Roommate Choice. Political Behavior 43: 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanga, John E., and Sheffield, James F.. 1987. The Myth of Zero Partisanship: Attitudes Toward American Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 31, 4: 829–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John C.. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. 33–47.Google Scholar
Vaish, Amrisha, Grossmann, Tobias, and Woodward, Amanda. 2008. Not All Emotions Are Created Equal: The Negativity Bias in Social-Emotional Development. Psychological Bulletin 134, 3: 383–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ham, Van, Carolien, and Jacques Thomassen. 2017. The Myth of Legitimacy Decline: An Empirical Evaluation of Trends in Political Support in Established Democracies. In Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis, ed. van Ham, Thomassen, Aarts, Kees, and Andeweg, Rudy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 17–34.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman, and Kim, Jac-On. 1978. Participation and Political Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wann, Daniel L., Melnick, Merrill J., Russell, Gordon W., and Pease, Dale G.. 2001. Sport Fans: The Psychology and Social Impact of Spectators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warner, Charles R. 2009. The Team America Loves to Hate: Why Baseball Fans Despise the New York Yankees. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Greene, Steven. 2003. The Political Psychology of Party Identification. In Electoral Democracy, ed. Rabinowitz, George and Michael, B. MacKuen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 83–117.Google Scholar
Wiesel, Elie. 1986. Those Glittering Nobel Prizes. US News & World Report, October 27: 68.Google Scholar
Zhong, Chen-Bo, Phillips, Katherine W., Leonardelli, Geoffrey J., and Galinsky, Adam D.. 2008. Negational Categorization and Intergroup Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34, 6: 793–806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zillmann, Dolf. 2000. Humor and Comedy. In Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal, ed. Zillmann and Peter Vorderer. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 37–57.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Haime and Cantú supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Haime and Cantú supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2 MB