Recent work on the influence of social identities reveals that placed-based attachments serve as a powerful heuristic when making political assessments. When a politician makes a place-based appeal—such as cuing rural origins—individuals who share that identity more strongly support the candidate. Yet, other important identities—namely, partisanship—are strongly related to place. Here, we attempt to disentangle the unique influence of a place-based identity (and the strength thereof) on candidate support. Additionally, we ask whether shared place can compel supportive behavior, rather than merely increase expressive support. Using a unique survey experiment, we find that those who strongly identify with a place are more willing to donate to the campaign of a shared-place candidate, relative to weaker place identification, but only among co-partisans. We find little evidence that place attachment influences supportive behavior beyond the role of partisanship. Disparate identities—here, place and partisanship—that create cross-pressures can operate in tandem.
AgnewJ. A. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Allen & Unwin, Inc.
2.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981.
3.
AnsolabehereS.RoddenJ.SnyderJ. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 214–322.
BerelsonL.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting. University of Chicago Press.
6.
BerinskyA.HuberG.LenzG. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
7.
BradyH.VerbaS.SchlozmanK. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. The American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.
8.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
9.
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
10.
ConoverP. J. (1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception and evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 46(3), 760–785.
11.
CramerK. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness and the rise of Scott Walker. University of Chicago Press.
12.
CubaL.HummonD. M. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community, and region. Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 111–122.
13.
DeBellM.KrosnickJ. A.GeraK.YeagerD. S.McDonaldM. P. (2018). The turnout gap in surveys: Explanations and solutions. Sociological Methods & Research, 49, 1133–1162.
14.
DeSanteC. D. (2013). Working twice as hard to get half as far: Race, work ethic, and America’s deserving poor. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 342–356.
ElazarD. J. (1966). American federalism: A view from the states. Harper Collins.
17.
EndersA. M.ArmalyM. T. (2019). The differential effects of actual and perceived polarization. Political Behavior, 41(3), 815–839.
18.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. C. (2005). Culture war?: The myth of polarized America. Pearson Longman.
19.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M. (2016). Why people vote: Estimating the social returns to voting. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 241–264.
20.
GreenD. P.PalmquistB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
21.
HancockAnge-Marie. “Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm.” Politics & Gender3.2 (2007): 248.
22.
HildrethJ. A. D.AndersonC. (2018). Does loyalty Trump honesty? Moral judgments of loyalty-driven deceit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 87–94.
23.
HortonJ.RandD.ZeckhauserR. (2010). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399–425.
24.
HuckfeldtR. R.SpraugeJ. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.
25.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 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.
JacobsN. F.MunisB. (2018). Place-based imagery and voter evaluations: Experimental evidence on the politics of place. Political Research Quarterly, 72, 263–277.
28.
KeyV. O. (1946). Southern politics in state and nation. Alfred A. Knopf.
29.
KinderD. R.KalmoeN. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. The University of Chicago Press.
30.
LappieJ.MarschallM. (2018). Place and participation in local elections. Political Geography, 64, 33–42.
31.
LelkesY.WestwoodS. J. (2017) The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485–501.
32.
LevenduskyM. (2010). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. University of Chicago Press.
33.
Lewis-BeckM. S.RiceT. W. (1983). Localism in presidential elections: The home state advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 27, 548–556.
34.
MartinG. J.WebsterS. W. (2018). Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization?Political Science Research and Methods, 8, 215–231.
35.
MasonL.WronskiJ. (2018). One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39, 257–277.
36.
McKeeS. C. (2008). Rural voters and the polarization of American presidential elections. Political Science & Politics, 41(1), 101–108.
37.
McKeeS. C.SpringerM. J. (2015). A tale of “Two Souths”: White voting behavior in contemporary southern elections. Social Science Quarterly, 92(6), 588–607.
38.
PanagopoulosC.BaileyK. (2019). “Friends-and-neighbors” mobilization. A field experimental replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 7, 13–26.
39.
PanagopoulosC.LeighleyJ. E.HamelB. T. (2017). Are voters mobilized by a ‘friend-and-neighbor’ on the ballot? Evidence from a field experiment. Political Behavior, 39(4), 865–882.
40.
PredA. (1990). Context and bodies in flux: Some comments on space and time in the writings of Anthony Giddens. In ClarkJ.ModgilC.ModgilS. (Eds.), Anthony Giddens: Consensus and controversy (pp. 117–129). The Falmer Press.
41.
ReedJ. S. (1983). Southerners: The social psychology of sectionalism. University of North Carolina Press.
42.
ScalaD. J.JohnsonK. M. (2017). Political polarization along the rural-urban continuum? The geography of the presidential vote, 2000–2016. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672(1), 162–184.
43.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
44.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter group behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson.
45.
ToblerW. R. (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(1), 234–240.
46.
WalshK. (2012). Putting inequality in its place: Rural consciousness and the power of perspective. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 517–532.
47.
WilliamsA.KitchenP.DeMiglioL.EylesJ.NewboldB.StreinerD. (2010). Sense of place in Hamilton, Ontario: Empirical results of a neighborhood-based survey. Urban Geography, 31(7), 905–931.
48.
WongC. (2010). Boundaries of obligation in American politics: Geographic, national, and racial communities. 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.
