In this article, I explore the relationship between sorting and the value that individuals assign to compromise. Analyzing four separate, nationally-representative surveys from 2007 to 2016, I show that a reliable asymmetry among partisans exists regarding their preference for political leaders who compromise. Among persons with right-leaning identities, high levels of overlap between partisanship and ideology undercut the professed desirability of compromise and amplify the association between compromise and selling out one’s principles. However, when individuals are asked about the specific extent to which one’s “side” deserves greater deference in the policymaking process, differences between persons with left- and right-leaning identities disappear. Well-sorted individuals are uniformly unwilling to distribute policymaking demands equally. Although this disconnect is emblematic of the general tension between abstract principles and episodic behavior (or “practicing what you preach”), it also highlights how the introduction of material threat may challenge expressive commitments to lofty ideals.
AhlerD. J.BroockmanD. E. (2018). The delegate paradox: Why polarized politicians can represent citizens best. The Journal of Politics. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/698755.
Bar-TalD. (2001). Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in the Israeli society?Political Psychology, 22, 601-627.
4.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
5.
BazermanM. H.NealeM. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York, NY: The Free Press.
6.
BrewerM. B.PierceK. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428-437.
7.
BroockmanD. E. (2016). Approaches to studying policy representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41, 181-215.
8.
CollinsT. P.CrawfordJ. T.BrandtM. J. (2017). No evidence for ideological asymmetry in dissonance avoidance: Unsuccessful close and conceptual replications of Nam, Jost, and van Bavel (2013). Social Psychology, 48, 123-134.
9.
DavisN. T. (2018a). Perceptions of elites and asymmetric sorting. Research and Politics, 5, 1-8.
10.
DavisN. T. (2018b). Religion and partisan-ideological sorting, 1984-2016. Social Science Quarterly, 99 (4), 1446-1466. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12508
11.
DavisN. T.DunawayJ. (2016). Party polarization, media choice, and mass partisan-ideological sorting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(Suppl. 1), 272-297.
12.
DavisN. T.MasonL. (2016). Sorting and the split-ticket: Evidence from presidential and subpresidential elections. Political Behavior, 38, 337-354.
13.
DevineC. J. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37, 509-535.
14.
DittoP. H.LiuB.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.ZingerJ. F. (2018). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1745691617746796
15.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57-79.
16.
FreemanJ. (1986). The political culture of the democratic and republican parties. Political Science Quarterly, 101, 327-356.
GordonC.ArianA. (2001). Threat and decision-making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 196-215.
19.
GreeneS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393-403.
20.
GrossmanM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
HabermasJ. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1, 1-10.
23.
HarbridgeL.MalhotraN.HarrisonB. F. (2014). Public preferences for bipartisanship in the policymaking process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 327-355.
24.
HuddyL.FeldmanS.TaberC.LahavG. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of anti-terrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 610-625.
25.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. The American Political Science Review, 109, 1-17.
26.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690-707.
27.
JostJ. T.SternC.RuleN. O.SternJ.2017. The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation?Social Cognition, 35, 324-353.
28.
KinderD. R.KalmoeN. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.De GradaE. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84-100.
30.
LeeperT.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Advances in Political Psychology, 35, 129-156.
31.
MalkaA.LelkesY. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23, 156-188.
32.
MarcusG. E.SullivanJ. L.Theiss-MorseE.WoodS. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128-145.
34.
MasonL. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(Suppl. 1), 351-377.
35.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.
PosenB. R. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. In BrownM. E. (Ed.), Ethnic conflict and international security (pp. 103-124). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L.2006. Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353.
39.
RoccasS.BrewerM. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106.
40.
RyanT. J. (2017). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409-423. doi:10.1111/ajps.12248
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
TheodoridisA. G. (2013). Implicit political identity. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46, 545-549.
44.
ThompsonL. (1995). They saw a negotiation: Partisanship and involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 839-853.
45.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.
46.
WolakJ.MarcusG. E. (2007). Personality and emotional responses: Strategic and tactical responses to changing political circumstances. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614, 172-195.
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.
