Real-world tests of the impact of partisan cues on voters are scarce because they require assessing how citizens’ attitudes changed toward an issue from before to after it became politically divisive. During the 2015–2016 New Zealand flag referendums, the leader of the (center-right) National Party and then–Prime Minister, John Key, championed changing the flag—a move strongly contested by the (center-left) Labour Party. Accordingly, we measured New Zealanders’ attitudes toward changing the flag using national longitudinal panel data collected in 2013, before the change was proposed, and again in 2016 at the height of the debate (Ns = 6,793–6,806). Registered voters who supported the National Party were more likely to shift from opposing to supporting the flag change, whereas those who supported the Labour Party were more likely to shift from supporting to opposing the change. These data demonstrate the powerful impact of partisan cues on political attitudes in a real-world setting.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235–262. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
2.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A. (2012). Following the party’s lead: Party cues, policy opinion, and the power of partisanship in three multiparty systems. Comparative Politics, 44, 403–420. doi:10.5129/001041512801283004
3.
BullockJ. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515. doi:10.1017/S0003055411000165
4.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW.StokesD. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464–477. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x
6.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
7.
CiukD. J.YostB. A. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33, 328–345. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1017629
8.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
9.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57–79. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000500
GorenP.FedericoC. M.KittilsonM. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 805–820. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00402.x
12.
GreeneS. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 136–153. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501010.x
13.
HardinC. D.HigginsE. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In HigginsE. T.SorrentinoR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 28–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
HuckfeldtR.MondakJ. J.CrawM.MendezJ. M. (2005). Making sense of candidates: Partisanship, ideology, and issues as guides to judgment. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 11–23. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.011
15.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
16.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038
JostJ. T.LedgerwoodA.HardinC. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x
19.
KamC. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-1764-y
KinderD. R. (2007). Curmudgeonly advice. Journal of Communication, 57, 155–162. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00335.x
22.
LeducL. (2002). Opinion change and voting behaviour in referendums. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 711–732. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00027
23.
LeeperT. J.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156. doi:10.1111/pops.12164
SibleyC. G.RobertsonA.OsborneD.HuangY.MilojevP.GreavesL. M.. . . BarlowF. K. (2017). Bias and tracking accuracy in voting projections using the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. Political Science, 69, 16–34. doi:10.1080/00323187.2017.1321589
30.
SlothuusR. (2010). When can political parties lead public opinion? Evidence from a natural experiment. Political Communication, 27, 158–177. doi:10.1080/10584601003709381
31.
SlothuusR.De VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630–645. doi:10.1017/S002238161000006X
32.
SnidermanP. M.TheriaultS. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge 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.
