Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Political Behavior 3/2021

04.11.2019 | Original Paper

The Limits of Partisan Loyalty

verfasst von: Jonathan Mummolo, Erik Peterson, Sean Westwood

Erschienen in: Political Behavior | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

While partisan cues tend to dominate political choice, prior work shows that competing information can rival the effects of partisanship if it relates to salient political issues. But what are the limits of partisan loyalty? How much electoral leeway do co-partisan candidates have to deviate from the party line on important issues? We answer this question using conjoint survey experiments that characterize the role of partisanship relative to issues. We demonstrate a pattern of conditional party loyalty. Partisanship dominates electoral choice when elections center on low-salience issues. But while partisan loyalty is strong, it is finite: the average voter is more likely than not to vote for the co-partisan candidate until that candidate takes dissonant stances on four or more salient issues. These findings illuminate when and why partisanship fails to dominate political choice. They also suggest that, on many issues, public opinion minimally constrains politicians.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Gerber et al. (2011) is the closest comparison in prior work to our current study, but focuses on a different research question. Specifically, the study documents individual differences in the extent to which citizens are confident in their ability to assess policy proposals and, accordingly, reward or punish representatives for adopting positions on them.
 
2
Online Appendix B provides an example of how these profiles looked to respondents.
 
4
The race/ethnicity of the candidate profiles was weighted to resemble the distribution of members of Congress at the time the survey was run.
 
5
Because of our focus on choice in settings with opposing party candidates we exclude 10,778 profile pairs in which the candidates had the same party label and individuals were unable to choose between them on this factor.
 
6
For this analysis we are only able to examine up to 4 issue agreements because one candidate position item (immigration policy) could not be mapped back to the individual policy position question.
 
7
We note here that there is minimal heterogeneity in these results by party, see Online Appendix D.
 
8
The analysis in Fig. 1 does not differentiate between different types of issues. When we consider their influence separately in Online Appendix A, agreement on Obamacare is more influential than the other three issues, although all exert a substantial influence on candidate choice.
 
9
These results characterize the response of the average partisan in our experiment. For brevity, we may refer to “voters,” “respondents” or “individuals” in the aggregate throughout.
 
10
In keeping with this assertion, Chong and Mullinix (n.d.) find that policy information has the greatest impact on policy support if it contains information on the ideological direction of the proposal.
 
11
While self-reports placed the Birth Control issue as high-salience for Study 1, our approach in Study 2 categorizes it as minimally divisive.
 
12
See Online Appendix B for additional information on the pre-testing procedure and validation of this issue typology.
 
13
These dynamics are similar when examining support for out-party candidates, but there is a substantially lower baseline level of support across conditions. These results are presented in Online Appendix D
 
14
This sample only included ‘Strong’ or ‘Not very strong’ partisans, excluding partisan leaners and independents.
 
15
For instance, comparing the ideology of general election candidates for Congress using measures of ideology based on a candidate’s campaign finance receipts, shows that no races in 2014 (the most recent year available) involved a Democratic candidate that was more conservative than their Republican opponent (Bonica 2014).
 
16
As in other work, we include partisan “leaners” with the party they are closest with and exclude “pure” independents.
 
17
We note that this divergence in base rates would not affect the marginal effects we display above, (since the baseline divergence would difference out in those estimates), but may impact our analysis of the likelihood of partisan defection (Figs. 2 and 4) which relies on predicted probabilities.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2006). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRef Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2006). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRef Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Barber, M., & Pope, J. C. (2019). Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 38–54.CrossRef Barber, M., & Pope, J. C. (2019). Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 38–54.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50.CrossRef Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.CrossRef Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bonica, A. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 37–386.CrossRef Bonica, A. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 37–386.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Boudreau, C., Elmendorf, C., & MacKenzie, S.A. (n.d.) Roadmaps to representation: An experimental study of how voter education tools affect citizen decision making. Political Behavior (pp. 1–24). Boudreau, C., Elmendorf, C., & MacKenzie, S.A. (n.d.) Roadmaps to representation: An experimental study of how voter education tools affect citizen decision making. Political Behavior (pp. 1–24).
Zurück zum Zitat Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62.CrossRef Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2018). Wanting what is fair: How party cues and information inequality affect public support for taxes. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 367–381.CrossRef Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2018). Wanting what is fair: How party cues and information inequality affect public support for taxes. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 367–381.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRef Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Zurück zum Zitat Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.CrossRef Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91.CrossRef Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.CrossRef Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chong, D., & Mullinix, K.J. (n.d.) Information and issue constraints on party cues. American Politics Research. Forthcoming. Chong, D., & Mullinix, K.J. (n.d.) Information and issue constraints on party cues. American Politics Research. Forthcoming.
Zurück zum Zitat Ciuk, D. J., & Yost, B. A. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33(2), 328–345.CrossRef Ciuk, D. J., & Yost, B. A. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33(2), 328–345.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRef Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Downs, A. (1957). An economic Theory of democracy. Manhattan: Harper & Row. Downs, A. (1957). An economic Theory of democracy. Manhattan: Harper & Row.
Zurück zum Zitat Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRef Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gerber, A., & Green, D. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 189–210.CrossRef Gerber, A., & Green, D. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 189–210.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). Citizens’ policy confidence and electoral punishment: A neglected dimension of electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1206–1224.CrossRef Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). Citizens’ policy confidence and electoral punishment: A neglected dimension of electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1206–1224.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.CrossRef Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gooch, A., & Huber, G. A. (2018). Exploiting Donald Trump: Using candidates’ positions to assess ideological voting in the 2016 and 2008 presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 342–356.CrossRef Gooch, A., & Huber, G. A. (2018). Exploiting Donald Trump: Using candidates’ positions to assess ideological voting in the 2016 and 2008 presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 342–356.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey expeirments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400.CrossRef Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey expeirments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRef Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.CrossRef Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186–200.CrossRef Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186–200.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.CrossRef Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jessee, S. A. (2012). Ideology and spatial voting in American elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Jessee, S. A. (2012). Ideology and spatial voting in American elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.CrossRef Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Key, V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf. Key, V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim, H. A., & LeVeck, B. L. (2013). Money, reputation, and incumbency in US house elections, or why marginals have become more expensive. American Political Science Review, 107(3), 492–504.CrossRef Kim, H. A., & LeVeck, B. L. (2013). Money, reputation, and incumbency in US house elections, or why marginals have become more expensive. American Political Science Review, 107(3), 492–504.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Kirkland, P., & Coppock, A. (2018). Candidate choice without party labels: New insights from U.S. mayoral elections 1945–2007 and conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior, 40(3), 571–591.CrossRef Kirkland, P., & Coppock, A. (2018). Candidate choice without party labels: New insights from U.S. mayoral elections 1945–2007 and conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior, 40(3), 571–591.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Leeper, T., & Robison, J. (n.d.) More important, but for what exactly? The insignificant role of subject issue importance in vote decisions. Political Behavior. Forthcoming. Leeper, T., & Robison, J. (n.d.) More important, but for what exactly? The insignificant role of subject issue importance in vote decisions. Political Behavior. Forthcoming.
Zurück zum Zitat Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.CrossRef Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to Hurricane Katrina. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135.CrossRef Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to Hurricane Katrina. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.CrossRef Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063.CrossRef Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mummolo, J. (2016). News from the other side: How topic relevance limits the prevalence of partisan selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 763–773.CrossRef Mummolo, J. (2016). News from the other side: How topic relevance limits the prevalence of partisan selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 763–773.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017). Why partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 45–59.CrossRef Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017). Why partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 45–59.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2017). How content preferences limit the reach of voting aids. American Politics Research, 45(2), 159–185.CrossRef Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2017). How content preferences limit the reach of voting aids. American Politics Research, 45(2), 159–185.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113, 517–529.CrossRef Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113, 517–529.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.CrossRef Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRef Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Nicholson, S. P., & Hansford, T. G. (2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636.CrossRef Nicholson, S. P., & Hansford, T. G. (2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Peterson, E. (2017). The role of the information enviornment in partisan voting. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1191–1204.CrossRef Peterson, E. (2017). The role of the information enviornment in partisan voting. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1191–1204.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Peterson, E. (2019). The scope of partisan influence on policy opinion. Political Psychology, 40(2), 335–352.CrossRef Peterson, E. (2019). The scope of partisan influence on policy opinion. Political Psychology, 40(2), 335–352.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Petty, R., & Krosnick, J. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecendents and consequences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Petty, R., & Krosnick, J. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecendents and consequences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.CrossRef Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Riggle, E. D. (1992). Cognitive strategies and candidate evaluations. American Politics Quarterly, 20(2), 227–246.CrossRef Riggle, E. D. (1992). Cognitive strategies and candidate evaluations. American Politics Quarterly, 20(2), 227–246.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V., Wyer, R., & Kuklinski, J. (1992). Bases of political judgements: The role of stereotypic and nonsteroetypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67–87.CrossRef Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V., Wyer, R., & Kuklinski, J. (1992). Bases of political judgements: The role of stereotypic and nonsteroetypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67–87.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sears, D. (1975). Political socialization. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 2, pp. 95–153). Boston: Addison-Wesley. Sears, D. (1975). Political socialization. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 2, pp. 95–153). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Zurück zum Zitat Tesler, M. (2015). Priming predispositions and changing policy positions: An account of when mass opinion is primed or changed. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 806–824.CrossRef Tesler, M. (2015). Priming predispositions and changing policy positions: An account of when mass opinion is primed or changed. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 806–824.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 83–98.CrossRef Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 83–98.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Zaller, J. (2012). What nature and origins leaves out. Critical Review, 24(4), 569–642.CrossRef Zaller, J. (2012). What nature and origins leaves out. Critical Review, 24(4), 569–642.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Limits of Partisan Loyalty
verfasst von
Jonathan Mummolo
Erik Peterson
Sean Westwood
Publikationsdatum
04.11.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Political Behavior / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09576-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Political Behavior 3/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner