Voters express different attitudes toward competing political parties and the issues they support. In this study, a polytomous latent class analysis of their opinions regarding party-divided issues identifies several types of voters and highlights the distinction between active and passive ambivalent voters. Such a distinction is necessary to clarify the relationship between party ambivalence and political participation. Drawing on research into ambivalent attitudes, the current study postulates that active ambivalent citizens adopt amplification strategies, whereas passive ambivalent citizens adopt avoidance strategies. A comparison between them further indicates that active ambivalent citizens are motivated to fulfill their civic duties and be accountable when they seek political information, and they express more political interest than their passive counterparts. A three-wave panel survey confirms the influence of ambivalent voter types (wave 1) on political participation (wave 3), according to voters’ political orientation (i.e., civic duty motives to seek political information and interest in politics) and their interactive political communication (interactive engagement with digital political information and interpersonal political discussions) (wave 2).
AtkinsonJ. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Van Nostrand.
3.
BaldassarriD.GelmanA. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408–446. https://doi.org/10.1086/590649
4.
BasingerS. J.LavineH. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051580
5.
BennettW. L.IyengarS. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
6.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2013). Civic duty and turnout in the UK referendum on AV: What shapes the duty to vote?Electoral Studies, 32(2), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.011
7.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
8.
CarminesE. G.EnsleyM. J.WagnerM. W. (2012). Who fits the left-right divide? Partisan polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1631–1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463353
9.
ChangC. (2014). The influence of ambivalence toward a communication source: Media context priming and persuasion polarization. Communication Research, 41(6), 783–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213495408
10.
ChangC.WeiR.LoV. H. (2014). Ambivalent versus univalent voters: Perceived media influences and third-person perceptions. Media Psychology, 17(4), 420–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.924420
DahlV.AmnåE.BanajiS.LandbergM.ŠerekJ.RibeiroN.BeilmannM.PavlopoulosV.ZaniB. (2018). Apathy or alienation? Political passivity among youths across eight European Union countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1404985
13.
DahlV.StattinH. (2016). Beyond the limits: Involvement in illegal political activities. European Political Science Review, 8(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773914000435
14.
DavidC. C. (2009). Learning political information from the news: A closer look at the role of motivation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01414.x
15.
DruckmanJ. N.LevenduskyM. S.McLainA. (2018). No need to watch: How the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12325
16.
EvelandW. P.Jr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877
17.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. Pearson Longman.
18.
GarrettR. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
19.
GibsonR.CantijochM. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?The Journal of Politics, 75(3), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000431
20.
Gil de ZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
21.
Gil de ZúñigaH.MolyneuxL.ZhengP. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103
22.
Gil de ZúñigaH.ValenzuelaS. (2011). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38(3), 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384984
23.
Gil de ZúñigaH.VeenstraA.VragaE.ShahD. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903316742
24.
GreeneS. (2005). The structure of partisan attitudes: Reexamining partisan dimensionality and ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26(5), 809–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00445.x
25.
GreenM. C.VisserP. S.TetlockP. E. (2000). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1380–1391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263006
26.
GreenwaldA. G. (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611434210
27.
HansonG.HaridakisP. M.CunninghamA. W.SharmaR.PonderJ. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication & Society, 13(5), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.513470
28.
HänzeM. (2001). Ambivalence, conflict, and decision making: Attitudes and feelings in Germany towards NATO’s military intervention in the Kosovo war. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.57
29.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional processes analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
30.
HetheringtonM. J. (2008). Turned off or turned on? How polarization affects political engagement. InNivolaP. S.BradyD. W. (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America’s polarized politics (pp. 1–33). Brookings Institution Press.
31.
HetheringtonM. J. (2009). Review article: Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123408000501
32.
HmielowskiJ. D. (2012). Intramedia moderation, electoral ambivalence, and electoral decision making. Mass Communication & Society, 15(3), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.616640
33.
HongY. T. (2001). In-house sampling. Wu-nan Publisher.
34.
HowardM. C.HoffmanM. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021
35.
HsiaoY. C.ChengS. F. (2014). Citizens’ perceptions of the left-right ideology in Taiwan: Replacing left-right ideology with the unification-independence issue to measure Taiwan’s party polarization. Taiwanese Journal of Political Science, 18(2), 79–138. https://doi.org/10.6683/TPSR.201412.18(2).79-138
36.
HuckfeldtR.IkedaK.PappiF. U. (2005). Patterns of disagreement in democratic politics: Comparing Germany, Japan, and the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00138.x
37.
JacobsonG. C. (2012). The electoral origins of polarized politics: Evidence from the 2010 cooperative congressional election study. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1612–1630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463352
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K. (2003). A boost or bust for democracy? How the web influenced political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(3), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180x03008003002
40.
KayeB. K.JohnsonT. J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_4
41.
KimY. M.WangM.GotliebM. R.GabayI.EdgerlyS. (2013). Ambivalence reduction and polarization in the campaign information environment: The interaction between individual- and contextual-level influences. Communication Research, 40(3), 388–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211431884
42.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K.WesterwickA. (2013). To your health: Self-regulation of health behavior through selective exposure to online health messages. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 807–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12055
43.
LavineH.ThomsenC. J.ZannaM. P.BorgidaE. (1998). On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(4), 398–421. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1357
44.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press.
45.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088434
46.
LeeC.ShinJ.HongA. (2018). Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.005
47.
LelkesY. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw005
48.
LevenduskyM. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
49.
LillekerD. G.Koc-MichalskaK. (2017). What drives political participation? Motivations and mobilization in a digital age. Political Communication, 34(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1225235
50.
LupiaA.PhilpotT. S. (2005). Views from inside the net: How websites affect young adults’ political interest. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1122–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00353.x
51.
McClurgS. D. (2004). Indirect mobilization: The social consequences of party contacts in an election campaign. American Politics Research, 32(4), 406–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x03260581
52.
McCutcheonA. L. (1987). Latent class analysis (No. 64) SAGE Publications.
53.
MillerP. R.BobkowskiP. S.MaliniakD.RapoportR. B. (2015). Talking politics on Facebook: Network centrality and political discussion practices in social media. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915580135
54.
MoyP.GastilJ. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600600977003
MutzD. C. (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401000223
57.
NguyenN. K.GarandJ. C. (2009). Partisan strength and nonpartisanship among Asian Americans. American Politics Research, 37(3), 375–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x08324228
58.
NirL. (2005). Ambivalent social networks and their consequences for participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(4), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh069
59.
OhrD.SchrottP. R. (2001). Campaigns and information seeking: Evidence from a German state election. European Journal of Communication, 16(4), 419–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323101016004001
60.
O’SullivanP. B.CarrC. T. (2018). Masspersonal communication: A model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1161–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686104
61.
PoindexterP. M.McCombsM. E. (2001). Revisiting the civic duty to keep informed in the new media environment. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800108
SaundersK. L.AbramowitzA. I. (2004). Ideological realignment and active partisans in the American electorate. American Politics Research, 32(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x03259195
65.
ShahD. V.KwakN.HolbertR. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846001750322952
66.
SteenbergenM. R.BrewerP. R. (2004). The not-so-ambivalent public: Policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence. InSarisW.SnidermanP. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error and change (pp. 93–162). Princeton University Press.
67.
StrömbäckJ.Djerf-PierreM.ShehataA. (2013). The dynamics of political interest and news media consumption: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(4), 414–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds018
TateK. (1991). Black political participation in the 1984 and 1988 presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1159–1176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963940
70.
ThompsonM. M.ZannaM. P.GriffinD. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. InPettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71.
ThorntonJ. R. (2013). The impact of elite polarization on partisan ambivalence and indifference. Political Behavior, 35(2), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9196-y
72.
TianY. (2011). Communication behaviors as mediators: Examining links between political orientation, political communication, and political participation. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.583503
73.
TreierS.HillygusD. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679–703. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp067
74.
TufekciZ.WilsonC. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir Square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x
75.
VaccariC. (2010). “Technology is a commodity”: The internet in the 2008 United States presidential election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(4), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681003656664
76.
van HarreveldF.van der PligtJ.de LiverY. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308324518
77.
WebsterS. W.AbramowitzA. I. (2017). The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the US electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17703132
78.
WeeksB. E.LaneD. S.KimD. H.LeeS. S.KwakN. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(6), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12199
79.
WolfsfeldG.YarchiM.Samuel-AzranT. (2016). Political information repertoires and political participation. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2096–2115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815580413
80.
YooS. J. (2010). Two types of neutrality: Ambivalence versus indifference and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609990545
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
