The current unidimensional conceptualization of party identification contains many ambiguities. Most troubling, however, has been the debate over the dimensionality of this important concept.
This article further examines the defects of the unidimensional conceptualization of party
identification using the National Election Studies party thermometers. The results repeatedly
demonstrate that the current conceptualization inadequately expresses individual affect toward
the political parties and political independence. An alternative conceptualization is discussed
that would eliminate the anomalies of the unidimensional concept.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes .1964. The American voter.New York: John Wiley.
2.
Cavanagh, Thomas E., and James L. Sundquist.1985. The new two-party system In The new direction in American politics, edited by John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Fiorina, Morris P.1977. An outline for a model of party choiceAmerican Journal of Political Science21:601-25
4.
. —. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Green, Donald Philip.1988. On the dimensionality of public sentiment toward partisan and ideological groupsAmerican Journal of Political Science32:758-80.
6.
Kamieniecki, Sheldon1985. Party identification, political behavior, and the American electorateWestport, CT: Greenwood.
7.
Katz, Richard S.1979. The dimensionality of party identification: Cross-national perspectivesComparative Politics11: 147-64
8.
. Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger .1977. The myth of the independent voterPaper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Association, Washington, DC
9.
Maggiotto, Michael A , and James E. Piereson .1977. Partisan identification and electoral choice: The hostility hypothesisAmerican Journal of Political Science21:745-67
10.
. McDonald, Michael D , and Susan E. Howell .1982. Reconsidering the reconceptualizations of party identificationPolitical Methodology8:73-91
11.
. Miller, Arthur H., and Warren E. Miller .1977. Partisanship and performance: "Rational" choice in the 1976 presidential electionPaper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC
12.
Miller, Warren E., principal investigator. The American national election studies, various years, 1952-1986Ann Arbor, MIInter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
13.
Ordeshook, Peter C.1986Game theory and political theory.New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Petrocik, John R.1974. An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identificationPolitical Methodology1:31-40
15.
. Valentine, David C., and John R. Van Wmgen .1980. Partisanship, independence, and the partisan identification questionAmerican Politics Quarterly8:165-86
16.
. Weisberg, Herbert F.1980. A multidimensional conceptualization of party identificationPolitical Behavior2:33-60
17.
. —. 1983. A new scale of partisanshipPolitical Behavior5:363-76.
