In the traditional 7-point scale of partisanship, individuals classified as partisan leaners present a unique anomaly. These individuals self-classify themselves as politically independent, yet admit to preferring one political party over the other when probed. Previous research has shown that these partisan leaners are not demonstrably different from avowed partisans in either the attitudinal or behavioral support for their preferred party. Why these individuals should be partisan in attitudes and behaviors yet still consider themselves independents has not been adequately examined and raises important questions about our current understanding of partisanship. Using a unique psychological survey of voting-age adults, I find that leaners are different from true partisans in four areas: relatively less emphasis on affect and more emphasis on cognition in partisan attitudes; less partisan social identity, but heightened independent social identity; different paterns of parental socialization; and more negative attitudes toward parties in general.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R.
, Kinder, D., Peters, M., & Fiske, S. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630.
2.
Abrams, D.
(1994). Political distinctiveness: An identity optimizing approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 357-365.
3.
Abrams, D.
, & Emler, N. A. (1992). Self-denial as a paradox of political and regional social identity: Findings from a study of 16- and 18-year-olds. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 279-295.
4.
Abramson, P.
, Aldrich, J., & Rohde, D. (1998). Change and continuity in the 1996 elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
5.
Alvarez, R. M.
(1990). The puzzle of party identification. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 476-491.
6.
Beck, P. A.
(1974). A socialization theory of realignment. In R. Niemi (Ed.), The politics of future citizens (pp. 199-219). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Beck, P. A.
, Dalton, R. J., Haynes, A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1997). Presidential campaigning at the grass roots. Journal of Politics, 59, 1264-1275.
8.
Brewer, M.
, & Silver, M. (in press). Group distinctiveness, social identity, and collective mobilization. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
9.
Burden, B. C.
, & Kimball, D. (1998). A new approach to the study of ticket splitting. American Political Science Review, 92, 533-544.
10.
Campbell, A.
, Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Carmines, E. G.
, & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Chaiken, S.
, Pomerantz, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (1995). Structural consistency and attitude strength. In J. A. Krosnick & R. Petty (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 387-412). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Crites, S.
, Fabrigar, L., & Petty, R. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619-634.
14.
Dalton, R.
(1984). Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies. Journal of Politics, 46, 264-284.
15.
Dennis, J.
(1988). Political independence in America. British Journal of Political Science, 18, 77-109.
16.
Dennis, J.
(1992). Political independence in America III: In search of closet partisans. Political Behavior, 14, 261-296.
17.
Duck, J.
, Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (1995). Me, us and them: Political identification and the third-person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215.
18.
Eagly, A. H.
, & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
19.
Eagly, A. H.
, & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 269-332). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Edwards, K.
(1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202-216.
21.
Fabrigar, L.
, & Petty, R. E. (1998). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363-381.
22.
Fiorina, M.
(1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gant, M.
, & Luttbeg, N. (1987). The cognitive utility of partisanship. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 499-517.
25.
Greene, S.
(1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393-404.
26.
Keith, B.
, Magleby, D., Nelson, C., Orr, E., Westyle, M., & Wolfinger, R. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Kelly, C.
(1988). Intergroup differentiation in a political context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 319-332.
28.
Kelly, C.
(1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 239-250.
29.
Kelly, C.
(1990a). Social identity and intergroup perceptions in minority-majority contexts. Human Relations, 43, 583-599.
30.
Kelly, C.
(1990b). Social identity and levels of influence: When a political minority fails. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 289-301.
31.
Lazarus, R. S.
(1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019-1024.
32.
Luskin, R.
, McIver, J., & Carmines, E. (1989). Issues and the transmission of partisanship. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 440-458.
33.
Mael, F. A.
, & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.
34.
Mael, F. A.
, & Tetrick, L. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 813-824.
35.
Mattei, F.
, & Niemi, R. (1991). Unrealized partisans, realized independents, and the intergenerational transmission of partisan identification. Journal of Politics, 53, 161-174.
36.
Nie, N.
, Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. (1976). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
Niemi, R. G.
, & Jennings, M. K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 970-988.
38.
Petrocik, J.
(1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification. Political Methodology, 1, 31-47.
39.
Richardson, B.
(1991). European party loyalties revisited. American Political Science Review, 85, 51-76.
40.
Tajfel, H.
(1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press.
41.
Valentine, D. C.
, & Van Wingen, J. R. (1980). Partisanship, independence, and the partisan identification. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 165-186.
42.
Wattenberg, M. P.
(1996). The decline of American political parties, 1952-1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Weisberg, H. F.
(1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification. Political Behavior, 2, 33-60.
44.
Zajonc, R. B.
(1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
45.
Zajonc, R. B.
(1984). The primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.
46.
Zanna, M.
, & Rempel, J. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315-334). New York: Cambridge University Press.
