While it is widely accepted that in the United States, political party labels serve as brand names which cue voters about the beliefs and ideologies of members, I explore the possibility that the signals sent by these labels are contingent upon the party membership of the individual voter. More specifically, I draw on social identity theory and hypothesize that individuals will be more likely to perceive heterogeneity among members of their own party. I find support for this hypothesis in perceptions of both the overall ideologies and voting records of US senators. Additionally, I compare respondent perceptions back to actual voting records and find that inpartisans are (1) only more likely to be correct when senators do in fact vote differently and (2) significantly less likely to be correct when senators vote the same way. These results suggest that the partisan differences uncovered are due to psychological bias and not just informational asymmetries and that biases stemming from group membership may lead to distorted opinions of senators and the representation they provide.
AbramowitzA (2013) The Polarized Public? Why American Government is so Dysfunctional. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
2.
AldrichJ (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
AnsolabehereS (2010) CCES Common Content, 2006. hdl:1902.1/14002, Harvard Dataverse, V4.
4.
AnsolabehereSJonesPE (2010) Constituents’ responses to congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science54: 583–597.
5.
ArceneauxK (2008) Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability?Political Behavior30: 139–160.
6.
BafumiJHerronM (2010) Leapfrog representation and extremism: a study of american voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review104: 519–542.
7.
BurdenBKimballD (2009) Why Americans Split their Tickets: Campaigns, Competition, and Divided Government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
CampbellAConversePMillerW. (1960) The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CarsonJ (2005) Strategy, selection, and candidate competition in U.S. house and senate elections. Journal of Politics67: 1–28.
10.
CarsonJKogerGLeboM. (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in congress. American Journal of Political Science54: 598–616.
11.
CitrinJReingoldBGreenD (1990) American identity and politics of ethnic change. Journal of Politics52: 1124–1154.
12.
CitrinJWongCDuffB (2001) The meaning of american national identity: patterns of ethnic conflict and consensus. In: AshmoreRJussimLWilderD (eds) Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Reduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
ClintonJ (2006) Representation in congress: constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics68: 397–409.
14.
ConoverPJFeldmanS (1989) Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Politic Science33: 912–940.
15.
CoxGMcCubbinsM (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
CoxGMcCubbinsM (2005) Seeing the Agenda. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CrumpSHamiltonDShermanS. (2010) Group entitativity and similarity: their differing patterns in perceptions of groups. European Journal of Social Psychology40: 1212–1230.
18.
DanceyLSheagleyG (2013) Heuristics behaving badly: party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science57: 312–325.
19.
DavisN2015The role of indifference in split-ticket voting. Political Behavior37: 67–86.
20.
DuckJHoggMTerryD (1995) Me, us and them: political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology25: 195–215.
21.
FiorinaMAbramsS (2012) Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
22.
FowlerJKamC (2007) Beyond the self: social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics69: 813–827.
23.
GreenDPalmquistBSchicklerE (2002) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
GreeneS (1999) Understanding party identification: a social identity approach. Political Psychology20: 393–403.
25.
GreeneS (2004) Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly85: 136–153.
26.
GreeneSElderL (2001) Gender and the psychological structure of partisanship. Women & Politics22: 63–84.
27.
GrynaviskiJ (2010) Partisan Bonds: Political Reputations and Legislative Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HareCArmstrongDABakkerR. (2015) Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens’ Ideological Preferences and Perceptions. American Journal of Political Science59: 759–774.
29.
HaslamSAOakesPTurnerJ. (1995) Social categorization and group homogeneity: changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype content as a function of comparative context and trait favourableness. British Journal of Social Psychology34: 139–160.
30.
HetheringtonM (2001) Resurgent mass partisanship: the role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review95: 619–631.
31.
HuddyL (2001) From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology22: 127–156.
32.
HuddyLMasonLAaroeL (2010) Measuring partisanship as a social identity, predicting political activism. In: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, San Francisco, CA, 7–10 July 2010.
33.
HuddyLVirtanenS (1995) Subgroup differentiation and subgroup bias among latinos as a function of familiarity and positive distinctiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68: 97.
34.
JuddCParkB (1988) Out-group homogeneity: judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54: 774–788.
35.
KeithBMaglebyDNelsonC. (1992) The Myth of The Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
KellyC (1989) Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology28: 239–250.
37.
KochJ (2001) When parties and candidates collide: citizens perceptions of house candidates’ positions on abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly65: 1–21.
38.
KogerGLeboM (2012) Strategic party government and the 2010 elections. American Politics Research40: 927–945.
39.
LauR (2013) Correct voting in the 2008 presidential nominating elections. Political Behavior35: 331–355.
40.
LeboMMcGlynnAKogerG (2007) Strategic party government: party influence in congress, 1789–2000. American Journal of Political Science51: 464–481.
41.
MullenBHuL-T (1989) Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: a meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology10: 233–252.
42.
NyhanBMcGheeESidesJ. (2012) One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research40: 844–879.
43.
OakesP (2002) Psychological groups and political psychology: a response to huddy’s “critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology23: 809–824.
44.
PooleKTRosenthalH (1985) A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science357–384.
45.
QuattroneGJonesE (1980) The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology38: 141–152.
46.
RahnW (1993) The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science37: 472–496.
47.
RiggleEOttatiVWyerR. (1992) Bases of political judgments: the role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior14: 67–87.
48.
SidesJCitrinJ (2007) European opinion about immigration: the role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science37: 477–504.
49.
SimasEEvansK. (2011) Linking party platforms to perceptions of presidential candidates’ policy positions, 1972-2000. Political Research Quarterly64: 831–839.
50.
SnidermanPHagendoornLPriorM (2004) Predisposing factors and situational triggers: exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review98: 35–49.
51.
SnyderJMJrTingMM (2002) An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science46(1): 90–110.
52.
TajfelH (1974) Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information13: 65–93.
53.
TajfelHTurnerJ (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (Eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–48.
54.
TurnerJ (1982) Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In: TajfelH (ed) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.15–40.
55.
WhitakerEFulwiderJ (2012) Perceptions of similarity and agreement in partisan groups. In: AldrichJMcGrawK (eds) Improving Public Opinion Surveys: Interdisciplinary Innovation and The American National Election Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Pressm, pp. 195–219.
56.
WoonJPopeJC (2008) Made in congress? Testing the electoral implications of party ideological brand names. Journal of Politics70: 823–836.
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.
