Renewed emphasis on the group-based nature of political parties makes understanding the relationship between partisan and group identities essential. How do citizens respond to the internal disconnect between their partisan identity and their other politically salient identities? In addition, do differences in the group-based nature of each party lead to asymmetric effects of party–group ambivalence? Using data from an original survey experiment across three samples—the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the 2012 Convention Delegate Study, and a 2015 sample from Amazon Mechanical Turk—I find that party–group ambivalence diminishes party loyalty, making respondents less likely to vote for, contribute to, or volunteer for their political party’s candidate. Moreover, the strength of this impact is consistently larger among Republican identifiers than Democratic identifiers. These results suggest that party asymmetry in party coalitions may have an impact on party loyalty.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information and, and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
BarabasJ.JeritJ. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid?American Political Science Review, 104, 226-242.
4.
BasingerS.LavineH. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
5.
BawnK.CohenM.KarolD.MasketS.NoelH.ZallerS. (2012). A theory of parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10, 571-597.
6.
BerelsonB.LazarsfeldP.McPheeW. (1954). Voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor market for experimental research: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
8.
BraderT.TuckerJ. A.TherriaultA. (2014). Cross pressure scores. An individual-level measure of cumulative partisan pressures arising from social group memberships. Political Behavior, 36, 23-51.
9.
BradyD. W.HanH.PopeJ. (2007). Primary elections and candidate ideology: Out of step with the primary electorate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32, 79-105.
10.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
11.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
12.
CampbellD.GreenJ. C.LaymanG. C. (2011). The party faithful: Partisan images, candidate religion and the electoral impact of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 42-58.
13.
CampbellA.GurinG.MillerW. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
14.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
CongerK.LaymanG.CoopermanR.ShufeldtG.LaymanG.KalkanK.… GreenJ. (2016). Group commitment among republican factions: A perspective from national convention delegates. Paper presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan.
16.
FreemanJ. (1986). The political culture of the democratic and republican parties. Political Science Quarterly, 101, 327-356.
17.
GalderisiP.EzraM.LyonsM. (Eds.). (2001). Congressional primaries and the politic or representation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
GreenD.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
GreeneS. (2005). The structure of partisan attitudes: Reexamining partisan dimensionality and ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26, 809-822.
20.
GroenendykE. (2013). Competing motives in the partisan mind: How loyalty and responsiveness shape party identification and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
GroenendykE.BanksA. J. (2014). Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology, 35, 359-378.
22.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. A. (2015). Ideological republicans and group interest democrats: The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13, 119-139.
23.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
HerreraR. (1992). The understanding of ideological labels by political elites: A research note. The Western Political Quarterly, 45, 1021-1035.
25.
HillygusD. S.ShieldsT. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
HuddyL.MasonL.AaroeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1-17.
27.
HuddyL.MasonL.HorwitzS. N. (2016). Political identity convergence: On being Latino, becoming a democrat, and getting active. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2, 205-228.
28.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405-431.
29.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 609-707.
30.
JohnsonA. (2014). Ambivalence, political engagement, and context. Political Studies, 62, 502-521.
31.
JostJ.HennesE. P.LavineH. (2013). Hot political cognition: Its self-, group-, and system-serving purposes. In CarlstonD. E. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 851-875). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
KinderD.KamC. (2009). Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LavineH. G. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.
34.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC.SteenbergenM. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
LavineH. G.SteenbergenM. (2005). Group ambivalence and electoral decision-making. In CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
LaymanG. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
37.
LaymanG.CarseyT.GreenJ. C.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104, 324-346.
38.
LevayK.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6, 1-17.
39.
MasonL. (2013). The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 140-159.
40.
MasonL. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128-145.
41.
MasonL. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 351-377.
42.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.
43.
McGrawK.HaseckeE.CongerK. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421-488.
44.
MeffertM. F.GugeM.LodgeM. (2004). Good, bad, and ambivalent: The Consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In SarisW. E.SnidermanP. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, non-attitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 63-92). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
MillerA.WlezienC. (1993). The social group dynamics of partisan evaluations. Electoral Studies, 12, 5-22.
46.
MillerP. R.ConoverP. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 225-239.
47.
MillerW. E.JenningsM. K. (1986). Parties in transition: A longitudinal study of party elites and party supporters. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
48.
MulliganK. (2011). Partisan ambivalence, split-ticket voting, and divided government. Political Psychology, 32, 505-530.
49.
MutzD. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
RahnW. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
51.
RoccasS.BrewerM. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106.
52.
RudolphT. J. (2011). The dynamics of ambivalence. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 561-573.
SmidtC. D. (2017). Polarization and the decline of the American floating voter. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 365-381.
55.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
56.
ThorntonJ. R. (2013). Getting lost on the way to the party: Ambivalence, indifferences, and defection with evidence from two presidential elections. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 184-201.
57.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellS. D. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
