The concept of ambivalence is important to the study of political psychology and behavior. We examine the causes of partisan ambivalence following the passage of major civil rights legislation to test our argument that the correlates of ambivalence will change following the alteration of long-standing party positions on a highly salient issue. We find support for this hypothesis for White Southerners during this time period—Indeed, our results demonstrate that the strength of one’s partisan attachment is unrelated to partisan evaluations for such individuals immediately following the passage of major civil rights legislation, but is again a predictor by the early 1970s.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the American electorate. Journal of Politics, 60, 634-652.
2.
AdamsG. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718-737.
3.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BasingerS. J.LavineH. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169-184.
5.
BeckP. A. (1977). Partisan development in the postwar south. American Political Science Review, 71, 477-496.
6.
BerinskyA.PowellE. N.SchicklerE.YohaiI. B. (2011). Revisiting public opinion in the 1930s and 1940s. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 515-520.
7.
BiancoW. T.LynchM. S.MillerG. J.SenedI. (2006). “A theory waiting to be discovered and used”: A reanalysis of canonical experiments on majority rule decision-making. Journal of Politics, 68, 837-850.
8.
BlackE.BlackM. (1992). The vital south: How presidents are elected. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BlackE.BlackM. (2002). The rise of the southern republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BlackM. (2004). The transformation of the southern democratic party. Journal of Politics, 66, 1001-1017.
11.
BoydR. W. (1972). Popular control of public policy: A normal vote analysis of the 1968 election. American Political Science Review, 66, 429-449.
12.
BrecklerS. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 350-365.
BurdenB. C.KimballD. C. (2002). Why Americans split their tickets. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
16.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1986). On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. American Political Science Review, 80, 901-920.
17.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
CarminesE. G.WoodsJ. (2002). The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Political Behavior, 24, 361-377.
19.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464-477.
20.
CaugheyD.BerinskyA. J.ChatfieldS.HartmanE.SchicklerE.SekhonJ. S. (n.d.) Population estimation and calibration weighting for nonresponse and sampling bias: Application to quota-sampled opinion polls, 1936-1953. Retrieved from https://www.dropbox.com/s/qnol9sffrb2bci1/CaugheyEtAl-Weights.pdf?dl=0
21.
ClarkJ. A.BruceJ. M.KesselJ. H.JacobyW. G. (1991). I’d rather switch than fight: Lifelong democrats and converts to republicanism among campaign activists. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 577-597.
22.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
ConverseP. E. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2, 139-171.
24.
GlaserJ. M.GilensM. (1997). Inter-regional migration and political resocialization: A study of racial attitudes under pressure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 72-86.
25.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB. (1994). How stable is party identification?Political Behavior, 16, 437-466.
26.
GreenD. PPalmquistB.SchicklerE. (1998). Macropartisanship: A replication and critique. American Political Science Review, 92, 883-899.
27.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts & minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
GreeneS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393-403.
29.
GreeneS. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 136-153.
30.
GreeneW. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
HanmerM. J.KalkanK. O. (2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 263-277.
32.
HayesD.McKeeS. E. (2007). Toward a one-party south?American Politics Research, 36(3), 3-32.
33.
HeckmanJ. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153-161.
34.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and political engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65-95.
35.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (2000). Political consequences of inconsistency: The accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Political Psychology, 21, 57-79.
36.
HuddyL. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127-156.
37.
HuddyL.BankertA. (2017). Political partisanship as a social identity. In ThompsonW. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.250
38.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1-17.
39.
JewellR. D. (2003). The effects of deadline pressure on attitudinal ambivalence. Marketing Letters, 14, 83-95.
40.
KarolD. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
KeeleL.WolakJ. (2008). Contextual sources of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 29, 653-673.
42.
KeyV. O. (1955). A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics, 17(1), 3-18.
43.
KimballD. C.SummaryB. (2012). Reconsidering the measure of partisan ambivalence. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108218
44.
KinderD. R.SearsD. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414-431.
45.
LavineH. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.
46.
LavineH.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002a). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 786-802.
48.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002b). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES studies. Political Behavior, 24, 199-236.
49.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.GreenJ. C.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104, 324-346.
50.
Lewis-BeckM. S.JacobyW. G.NorpothH.WeisbergH. F. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
51.
LindamanK.Haider-MarkelD. P. (2002). Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture war. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 91-110.
52.
LublinD. (2004). The republican south: Democratization and partisan change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully disagree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128-145.
54.
McGrawK. M.HaseckeE.CongerK. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421-448.
55.
McKeeS. C.SpringerM. J. (2015). A tale of “two-souths”: White voting behavior in contemporary southern elections. Social Science Quarterly, 96, 588-607.
56.
MeffertM. F.GugeM.LodgeM. (2004). Good, bad, indifferent and ambivalent: The consequence of multidimensional political attitudes. In SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (Eds.), The issue of belief: Essays in the intersection of non-attitudes and attitude change (pp. 60-100). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
MillerG.SchofieldN. (2008). The transformation of the republican and democratic party coalitions in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics, 6, 433-450.
58.
MillerJ. M.PetersonD. A. M. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics, 66, 847-867.
59.
MulliganK. (2011). Partisan ambivalence, split-ticket voting, and divided government. Political Psychology, 32, 505-530.
60.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
61.
NadeauR.StanleyH. W. (1993). Class polarization in partisanship among native southern whites, 1952-90. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 900-919.
62.
Newby-ClarkI. R.McGregorI.ZannaM. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157-166.
63.
NirL.DruckmanJ. N. (2008). Campaign mixed-message flows and timing of vote decision. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 326-346.
64.
NoelH. (2012). The coalition merchants: The ideological roots of the civil rights realignment. Journal of Politics, 74, 156-173.
65.
NoelH. (2013). Political ideologies and political parties in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
66.
NorpothH.RuskJ. G. (1982). Partisan dealignment in the American electorate: Itemizing the deductions since 1964. American Journal of Political Science, 76, 522-537.
67.
OsborneD.SearsD. O.ValentinoN. A. (2011). The end of the democratic south: The impressionable years hypothesis. Political Psychology, 32, 81-108.
68.
PetrocikJ. R. (1987). Realignment: New party coalitions and the nationalization of the south. Journal of Politics, 49, 347-375.
69.
PoveyR.WellensB.ConnerM. (2001). Attitudes toward following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37(1), 15-26.
70.
RaineyC. (2014). Arguing for a negligible effect. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 1083-1091.
71.
RudolphT. J. (2005). Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26, 905-928.
72.
RudolphT. J. (2011). The dynamics of ambivalence. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 561-573.
73.
RudolphT. J.PoppE. (2007). An information processing theory of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 28, 563-586.
74.
SchicklerE.PearsonK.FeinsteinB. D. (2010). Congressional parties and civil rights politics from 1933 to 1972. Journal of Politics, 72, 672-689.
75.
SchofieldN.MillerG.MartinA. (2003). Critical elections and political realignments in the USA: 1860-2000. Political Studies, 51, 217-240.
76.
SearsD. O.LauR. R.TylerT. R.AllenH. M.Jr. (1980). Self-interest versus symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670-684.
77.
SearsD. O.ValentinoN. A. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 45-65.
78.
ShufeldtG. (2017). Party-group ambivalence and voter loyalty: Results from three experiments. American Politics Research, 46, 132-168. doi:10.1177/1532673X17705854
79.
StanleyH. W. (1988). Southern partisan changes: Realignment, dealignment, or both?Journal of Politics, 50, 64-88.
80.
SteenbergenM. R.LavineH.GoolsbyD. (2006). Reducing conceptual chaos: Distinguishing partisan ambivalence from partisan strength. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association, April, Chicago, IL.
81.
SundquistJ. L. (1983). Dynamics of the party system (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
82.
TajfelH. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparisons. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60). London, England: Academic Press.
83.
TetlockP. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819-827.
84.
ThompsonM. M.ZannaM. P.GriffinD. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In KrosnickJ. (Ed.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85.
ThorntonJ. R. (2011). Ambivalent or indifferent: Examining the properties of measures of partisan ambivalence. Political Psychology, 32, 863-884.
86.
ThorntonJ. R. (2013). The impact of elite polarization on partisan ambivalence and indifference. Political Behavior, 35, 409-428.
87.
ValentinoN. A.SearsD. O. (2005). Old times they are not forgotten: Race and partisan realignment in the contemporary south. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 672-688.
88.
VellaF. (1998). Estimating models with sample selection bias: A survey. The Journal of Human Resources, 33, 127-169.
89.
Voting Rights Act. (1965). Public Law. 89-110; 79 Stat. 437.
90.
WohlbrechtC. (2000). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
91.
ZallerJ. (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.
