We argue that citizens’ trust attitudes are inversely related to party polarization because polarization tends to encourage political conflict, which most people dislike. We further posit that partisans trust attitudes are driven by the ideological extremity of the opposing and their own parties for similar reasons. Using roll-call-based estimates of state legislative party polarization and public opinion data collected in 2008, we show strong evidence in favor of our theory: higher levels of party polarization within legislative chambers depresses citizens’ trust in their legislatures. Among partisans, we also find that trust attitudes respond to the ideological extremity of the opposing party but not to a citizen’s own party’s extremity. We further find that as citizens’ interest in politics increases, they react more strongly to polarization when forming their trust attitudes. Finally, partisans become less responsive to the ideological extremity of the opposing party as they become more politically interested.
AtkinsonM. L. (2017). Combative politics: The media and public perceptions of lawmaking. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
BarberM.McCartyN. (2015). Causes and consequences of polarization. In MansbridgeJ.MartinC. J. (Eds.), Solutions to political polarization in america (pp. 19-53).Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
3.
BischofD.ZurichC. (2017). New graphics schemes for stata: Plotplain & plottig. The Stata Journal, 17(3), 748-759.
4.
BowlerS.KarpJ. A. (2004). Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior, 26, 271-287.
BranscombeN. R.EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
7.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
8.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
CarsonJ. L.KogerG.LeboM. J.YoungE. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 598-616.
10.
ChanleyV. A.RudolphT. J.RahnW. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239-256.
11.
CitrinJ. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68, 973-988.
12.
CitrinJ.GreenD. P. (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 431-453.
13.
ColeR. L. (1973). Towards a model of political trust: A causal analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 17, 809-817.
14.
CraigS. C. (1993). The malevolent leaders: Popular discontent in America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
15.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
DoddL. C.SchraufnagelS. (2012). Congress and the polarity paradox: Party polarization, member incivility and enactment of landmark legislation, 1891-1994. Congress & the Presidency, 39, 109-132.
17.
DoddL. C.SchraufnagelS. (2013). Taking incivility seriously. In FrischS.KellyS. (Eds.), Politics to the extreme (pp. 71-91). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
19.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57-79.
20.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
21.
ErberR.LauR. (1990). Political cynicism revisited: An information-processing reconciliation of policy-based and incumbency-based interpretations of changes in trust in government. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 236-253.
22.
FlavinP. (2013). Policy representation and evaluations of state government. State and Local Government Review, 45, 139-152.
23.
GarandJ. C. (2010). Income inequality, party polarization, and roll-call voting in the U.S. Senate. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1109-1128.
24.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HetheringtonM. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92, 791-808.
26.
HetheringtonM. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95, 619-631.
27.
HetheringtonM. J.NugentJ. D. (2001). Explaining public support for devolution: The role of political trust. In HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (Eds.), What is it about government that Americans dislike? (pp. 134-151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HetheringtonM. J.RudolphT. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
HinchliffeK. L.LeeF. E. (2015). Party competition and conflict in state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16, 172-197.
30.
HinichM. J.MungerM. C. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1-17.
32.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405-431.
33.
JacksonD. (2010). Strategic media, cynical public? Examining the contingent effects of strategic news frames on political cynicism in the United Kingdom. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16, 75-101.
34.
JohnsonT.O’GradyC. (2013). Speakers and the spotlight explaining media coverage of leadership in the house of representatives. American Politics Research, 41, 498-532.
35.
JonesD. R. (2015). Declining trust in congress: Effects of polarization and consequences for democracy. The Forum, 13, 375-394.
36.
KeeleL. (2005, August). The authorities really do matter: Party control and trust in government. The Journal of Politics, 67, 873-886.
37.
KelleherC. A.WolakJ. (2007). Explaining public confidence in the branches of state government. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 707-721.
38.
KingD. C. (1997). The polarization of American parties and mistrust of government. In NyeJ. S.ZelikowP. D.KingD. C. (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 155-178). Cambrige, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
KousserT. B. (2010). Does partisan polarization lead to policy gridlock in California?California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2, 1-23.
40.
LeboM. J.McGlynnA. J.KogerG. (2007). Strategic party government: Party influence in congress, 1789–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 464-481.
41.
LeeF. E. (2015). How party polarization affects governance. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 261-282.
42.
MansbridgeJ. M. (1997). Social and cultural causes of dissatisfaction with the U.S. government. In NyeJ. S.ZelikowP. D.KingD. C. (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 133-154). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
MillerA. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970. American Political Science Review, 68, 951-972.
45.
MorrisJ. S.ClawsonR. A. (2005). Media coverage of congress in the 1990s: Scandals, personalities, and the prevalence of policy and process. Political Communication, 22, 297-313.
46.
OrrenG. (1997). Fall from grace: The public’s loss of faith in government. In NyeJ. S.ZelikowP. D.KingD. C. (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 77-108). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
RamirezM. D. (2009). The dynamics of partisan conflict on congressional approval. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 681-694.
48.
RichardsonL. E.Jr.KoniskyD. M.MilyoJ. (2012). Public approval of state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 37, 99-116.
49.
ShorB.McCartyN. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105, 530-551.
50.
StokesD. E. (1962). Popular evaluations of government: An empirical assessment. In ClevelandH.LasswellH. D. (Eds.), Ethics and bigness: Scientific, academic, religious, political, and military (pp. 61-72). New York, NY: Harper.
51.
Theiss-MorseE.BartonD.-G.WagnerM. W. (2015). Political trust in polarized times. In BornsteinB. H.TomkinsA. J. (Eds.), Motivating cooperation and compliance with authority (pp. 167-190). New York, NY: Springer.
52.
TheriaultS. M. (2006). Party polarization in the US congress member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12, 483-503.
53.
TheriaultS. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
TowfighE. V.GoergS. J.GlöcknerA.LeifeldP.Llorente-SaguerA.BadeS.KurschilgenC. (2016). Do direct-democratic procedures lead to higher acceptance than political representation?Public Choice, 167, 47-65.
55.
UslanerE. M. (2015). Congressional polarization and political trust. The Forum, 13, 361-373.
56.
WolakJ.PalusC. K. (2010). The dynamics of public confidence in U.S. state and local government. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10, 421-445.
57.
ZallerJ. R. (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.
