Drawing on the two-wave 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES) survey, this study revisits partisan types by categorizing individuals’ party identification and positions on party-divided issues. A Latent Class Analysis reveals six types of partisans, which were further clustered into three types: polarized partisans (i.e., polarized Democrats and polarized Republicans, 47.85%), incongruent partisans (i.e., conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, 28.23%), and floating citizens (i.e., hesitant citizens and apathetic citizens, 23.92%) based on the partisan typology proposed in this study. Employing the O-S-R-O-R model, this study found that polarized partisans (O), who are the most politically active citizens, are more likely than incongruent partisans and floating citizens to seek pro-attitudinal news on multi-platforms (S), then to discuss politics (R), then to be politically knowledgeable (O), which finally leads to higher levels of political participation. The results highlight a worrisome tendency in US politics as participation is largely by biased polarized partisans. Nevertheless, incongruent partisans also have the potential to make contributions to both deliberative and participatory democracy because they are also politically active. Their discussion and participatory behaviors can be attributed to their mixed issue positions and counter-attitudinal news consumption on multi-platforms.
AmsalemE.NirL. (2021). Does interpersonal discussion increase political knowledge? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 48(5), 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219866357
4.
BankertA.HuddyL.RosemaM. (2017). Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Political Behavior, 39(1), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9349-5
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.
BonikowskiB.FeinsteinY.BockS. (2021). The partisan sorting of “America”: How nationalist cleavages shaped the 2016 US presidential election. The American Journal of Sociology, 127(2), 492–561. https://doi.org/10.1086/717103
7.
BorahP.BarnidgeM.RojasH. (2022). The contexts of political participation: The communication mediation model under varying structural conditions of the public sphere. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(4), 942–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211029466
8.
BoulianneS. (2020). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
9.
CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.BrossardD.CorleyE. A. (2018). Is Facebook making us dumber? Exploring social media use as a predictor of political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018770447
10.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson, and Co.
11.
CarminesE. G.BerkmanM. (1994). Ethos, ideology, and partisanship: Exploring the paradox of conservative Democrats. Political Behavior, 16(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01498877
12.
CeleuxG.SoromenhoG. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01246098
13.
ChangC.WuC.-L. (2022). Active vs. passive ambivalent voters: Implications for interactive political communication and participation. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211066001
14.
ChanM.ChenH.-T.LeeF. L. F. (2017). Examining the roles of mobile and social media in political participation: A cross-national analysis of three Asian societies using a communication mediation approach. New Media & Society, 19(12), 2003–2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816653190
15.
ChanM.ChenH.-T.LeeF. L. F. (2021). Cross-cutting discussion on social media and online political participation: A cross-national examination of information seeking and social accountability explanations. Social Media+Society, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211035697
16.
ChenH.-T.GuoL.SuC. C. (2020). Network agenda setting, partisan selective exposure, and opinion repertoire: The effects of pro- and counter-attitudinal media in Hong Kong.Journal of Communication, 70(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz042
17.
ChenH.-T.LinJ. S. (2021). Cross-cutting and like-minded discussion on social media: The moderating role of issue importance in the (De)mobilizing effect of political discussion on political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 65(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2021.1897822
18.
ChenJ. (2013). Voter partisanship and the effect of distributive spending on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00613.x
19.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an OSROR model of communication effects. Communication Theory: CT: A Journal of the International Communication Association, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
20.
ConverseP. E.CampbellA.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1961). Stability and change in 1960: A reinstating election. The American Political Science Review, 55(2), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952237
21.
DahlbergL. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions. New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569
DanceyL.GorenP. (2010).Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 686–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00454.x
25.
DaudtH. (1961). Floating voters and the floating vote: A critical analysis of American and English election studies. Kroese.
26.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
27.
de VreeseC. H.BoomgaardenH. (2006). News, political knowledge and participation: The differential effects of news media exposure on political knowledge and participation. Acta Politica, 41(4), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500164
28.
DiehlT.BarnidgeM.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2019). Multi-platform news use and political participation across age groups: Toward a valid metric of platform diversity and its effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(2), 428–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018783960
29.
Dvir-GvirsmanS.GarrettR. K.TsfatiY. (2018). Why do partisan audiences participate? Perceived public opinion as the mediating mechanism. Communication Research, 45(1), 112–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215593145
30.
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
31.
EvelandW. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28(5), 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028005001
32.
FieldhouseE.CuttsD.BaileyJ. (2022). Who cares if you vote? Partisan pressure and social norms of voting. Political Behavior, 44, 1297–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09661-y
33.
FinkelS. E.MullerE. N.OppK.-D. (1989). Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 885–903. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962065
34.
FoxS. (2014). Is it time to update the definition of political participation? Political participation in Britain: The decline and revival of civic culture. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss094
35.
Gil de ZúñigaH.WeeksB.Ardèvol-AbreuA. (2017). Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12185
36.
GillH. (2022). Testing the effect of cross-cutting exposure to cable TV news on affective polarization: Evidence from the 2020 US presidential election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 66(2), 320–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2087653
GutmannA.ThompsonD. F. (2009). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press.
39.
HameleersM.van der MeerT. (2020). Fight or flight? Attributing responsibility in response to mixed congruent and incongruent partisan news in selective exposure media environments. Information Communication & Society, 23(9), 1327–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2019.1566394
40.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.
41.
HetheringtonM. (2008). Turned off or turned on? How polarization affects political engagement. In NivolaP.BradyD. (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Consequences and correction of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 2, pp. 1–54). Brookings Institution Press and the Hoover Institution.
JacobsonG. C. (2012). The electoral origins of polarized politics: Evidence from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. The American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1612–1630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463352
45.
JungN.KimY.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on political participation. Mass Communication & Society, 14(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.496135
46.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01543.x
47.
LeeS.DiehlT.ValenzuelaS. (2021). Rethinking the virtuous circle hypothesis on social media: Subjective versus objective knowledge and political participation. Human Communication Research, 48(1), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqab014
48.
LiX.ChanM. (2017). Comparing social media use, discussion, political trust and political engagement among university students in China and Hong Kong: An application of the O–S–R–O–R model. Asian Journal of Communication, 27(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2016.1248454
49.
MatthesJ.KnollJ.ValenzuelaS.HopmannD. N.Von SikorskiC. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cutting exposure on political participation. Political Communication, 36(4), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1619638
50.
MayerW. G. (2008). What exactly is a swing voter? Definition and measurement. In MayerW. G. (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (pp. 1–31). Brookings Institution Press.
51.
McCoyJ.SomerM. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782
52.
McLeodJ. M.ScheufeleD. A.MoyP. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198659
53.
MilbrathL. W. (1981). Political participation. In LongS. L. (Ed.), The handbook of political behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 197–240). Springer.
54.
MutzD. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004264
55.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
56.
RicheyS.TaylorJ. B. (2012). Who advocates? Determinants of political advocacy in presidential election years. Political Communication, 29(4), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.721869
57.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.EvelandW. P.KwakN. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Designing democracy: What constitutions do. Oxford University Press.
62.
TeinJ.-Y.CoxeS.ChamH. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824781
VermuntJ. K.MagidsonJ. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In HagennarsJ. A.McCutcheonA. L. (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge University Press.
66.
WeeksB. E.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2021). What’s next? Six observations for the future of political misinformation research. The American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878236
67.
YamamotoM.YangF. (2022). Does news help us become knowledgeable or think we are knowledgeable? Examining a linkage of traditional and social media use with political knowledge. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1969611
68.
ZallerJ. (2004). Floating voters in U.S. Presidential elections, 1948–2000. In SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 166–214). Princeton University Press.
69.
ZukinC.KeeterS.AndolinaM.JenkinsK.Delli CarpiniM. X. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. Oxford University Press.
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.
