The implications of intergroup political conflicts for social cooperation are still an understudied topic. We report on two online survey experiments in which we implement multiple trust games to assess the impact of different political conflicts on trust behaviour in two national samples in Spain and Portugal. The results suggest that citizens’ social trust is heavily affected by partisanship, favouring in-group party members over out-group party identifiers. This finding is robust in both countries, although the partisanship overall effect seems to be stronger in Spain, which has a more polarized party system. Moreover, the effect involves all parties despite their size and ideology. However, trust among different partisans mirrors interparty positioning. A second study for the Spanish case shows that the partisanship treatment is the one affecting trust the most, followed by the ideological and regional conflicts, which are usually considered long-standing divides with a greater impact in European democracies.
AlesinaALa FerraraE (2002) Who trusts others?Journal of Public Economics85: 207–234.
2.
ArrowK (1973) The theory of discrimination. In: AshenfelterOReesA (eds), Discrimination in Labor Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–33.
3.
BacharachMGambettaD (2001) Trust in signs. In: CookK (ed.), Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 148–184.
4.
BartleJBellucciP (2009) Partisanship: Party Identification, Social Identities, and Political Experiences. London: Routledge ECPR.
5.
BartoliniSMairP (1990) Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stability of European Electorates, 1885-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BeckerG (1957) The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
7.
BergJDickautJMcCabeK (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior10(1): 122–142.
8.
BraderTTuckerJADuellD (2012) Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies46(11): 1485–1517.
9.
BrewerM (1981) Ethnocentrism and Its Role in Interpersonal Trust. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
BrewerMKramerR (1985) The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Psychology36: 219–243.
11.
BuchanNCrosonR (2004) The boundaries of trust: own and others’ actions in the US and China. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization55: 485–504.
12.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE. (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
13.
CarlinRELoveGJ (2013) The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: an experimental approach. Political Behavior35(1): 43–66.
14.
CarlinRELoveGJ (2016) Political competition, partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 22 January 2016. DOI:10.1017/S0007123415000526.
15.
ChhibberPTorcalM (1997) Elite strategy, social cleavages and party systems in a new democracy: Spain. Comparative Political Studies30: 27–54.
16.
ColemanJ (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge-London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
17.
CriadoHHerrerosFMillerL. (2015) Ethnicity and trust: a multifactorial experiment. Political Studies63: 131–152.
18.
DaltonRJ (2008) The quantity and the quality of party systems. Party system polarization, its measurement and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies41(7): 899–920.
19.
FehrEFischbacherUvon RosenbladtB. (2003) A nation-wide laboratory: examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys (IZA Discussion Paper No. 715). Bonn. Available at: http://www.iza.org/(accessed 1 September 2015).
20.
FershtmanCGneezyUVerbovenF (2005) Discrimination and nepotism: the efficiency of the anonymity rule. Journal of Legal Studies34(2): 371–396.
21.
FreireAViegasJMLLisiM (2012) ‘Portuguese Voters survey, 2012’, Research project at ISCTE-IUL and CIES-IUL, Elections, Leadership, and Accountability: Political Representation in Portugal in a longitudinal and comparative perspective, FCT: FCT: PTDC/CPJ-CPO/119307/2010. Available at: http://er.cies.iscte-iul.pt/(accessed 1 September 2015).
22.
FoddyMYamagishiT (2009) Group-based trust. In: CookKLeviMHardinR (eds), Whom Can We Trust? New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 17–41.
23.
FowlerJHKamCD (2007) Beyond the self: social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics69(3): 813–827.
24.
FreireA (2010) A new era in democratic Portugal? The 2009 European, legislative and local elections. South European Society and Politics15(4): 593–613.
25.
GambettaD (1988) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
26.
GorenPFedericoCMKittilsonMC (2009) Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 805–820.
27.
GreeneS (2004) Social identity theory and political identification. Social Science Quarterly85(1): 138–153.
28.
HabyarimanaJPHumphreysMPosnerDN. (2009) Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
HageviM (2015) Bloc identification in multi-party systems: the case of the Swedish two-bloc system. West European Politics38(1): 73–92.
30.
HaileDSadriehAVerbonHAA (2008) Cross-racial envy and underinvestment in South African partnerships. Cambridge Journal of Economics32(5): 703–724.
31.
HardinR (2002) Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
HiltonJVon HippelW (1996) Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology47(1): 237–271.
33.
HuddyL (2013) From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In: HuddyLSearsDOLevyJ (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.737–773.
34.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
35.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
36.
JohnsonNDMislinAA (2011) Trust games: a meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology32:865–889.
37.
JohnstonR (2006) Party identification: unmoved mover or sum of preferences?Annual Review of Political Science9: 329–351.
38.
LevenduskyMS (2010) Clearer cues, more consistent voters: a benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior32: 111–131.
39.
LinzJJMonteroJR (2001) The party systems of Spain: old cleavages and new challenges. In: KarvonenLKuhnleS (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited. London: Routledge, pp. 150–196.
40.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: Free Press.
41.
LupuN (2014) Party polarization and mass partisanship: a comparative perspective. Political Behavior37(2): 331–356.
42.
MackieDHamiltonD (1993) Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception. San Diego: Academic Press.
43.
MairP (2007) Left-right orientations. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 206–222.
44.
MalkaALelkesY (2010) More than ideology: conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research23:156–188.
45.
MichelitchK (2015) Does electoral competition exacerbate interethnic or interpartisan economic discrimination? Evidence from a market price bargaining experiment in Ghana. American Political Science Review109(1): 43–61.
46.
NicholsonSP (2012) Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 52–66.
47.
OrriolsLBalcellsL (2012) Party polarisation and spatial voting in Spain. South European Society and Politics17(3): 393–409.
48.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
49.
RahnWM (1993) The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science37(2): 472–496.
50.
RevillaMSarisWLoeweG. (2013) Can an online panel oriented to marketing surveys get similar SEM estimates of question quality as the face-to-face European Social Survey? (RECSM Working Paper 33). Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Available at: http://www.upf.edu/survey/(accessed 1 September 2015).
51.
SartoriG (2005) Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.
52.
SlothuusRde VreeseCH (2010) Political parties, motivated reasoning and issue framings effects. Journal of Politics72(3): 630–645.
53.
ThomassenJ (2005) The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
TurnerJHoggMOakesP. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
55.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science185: 1124–1131.
56.
UslanerEM (2005) Political parties and social capital, political parties or social capital. In: KatzRSCrottyWJ (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 376–386.
57.
WestwoodSIyengarSWalgraveS. (2015) The Tie that Divides: Cross-National Evidence of the Primacy of Partyism. Mimeo: Dartmouth College.
58.
WhittSWilsonR (2007) The dictator game, fairness, and ethnicity in postwar Bosnia. American Journal of Political Science51(3): 655–668.
59.
WooldridgeJ (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT 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.
