Search results

"Partisanship and Political Cognition" published on by Oxford University Press.

ABSTRACTThe literature on comparative partisanship has demonstrated the low rates of party identification in Latin America. Such low rates are commonly interpreted as a sign of citizens' disengagement with parties and democracy in the region. This article revisits this interpretation by considering voters' adverse affection toward a party, or negative partisanship. It shows that examining the negative side of partisanship can help us develop a clearer perspective on the partisan linkages in the electorate. To support this claim, this study analyzes an original conjoint experiment in Argentina and Mexico, as well as two other public opinion surveys fielded in Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador. The study presents empirical evidence indicating that negative partisanship helps voters without an attachment to a party to distinguish themselves from nonpartisans, is independent of positive partisanship, and is different from a general distrust of the democratic system.

Political parties have generally been disregarded in the literature on political obligation. In this article I argue that, regardless of whether ordinary citizens or residents of a polity have any political obligations, partisanship generates its own kind of political obligations. Participating in party politics qua party members, supporters, activists or even mere voters produces benefits that generate corresponding and proportionate political obligations for those who enjoy them. The political obligations of partisans are easier to justify than those of ordinary citizens as the conditions under which the benefits of partisanship can be rendered excludable are easier to obtain.

In The Power of Partisanship, Joshua J. Dyck and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz argue that the growth in partisan polarization in the United States, and the resulting negativity voters feel towards their respective opposition party, has far-reaching effects on how Americans behave both inside and outside the realm of politics. Dyck and Pearson-Merkowitz show how partisanship influences the electorate's support for democratic norms, willingness to engage in risk related to financial and healthcare decisions, interracial interactions, and previously non-political decisions like what we like to eat for dinner. Drawing on a series of original surveys and experiments conducted between 2014 and 2020, Dyck and Pearson-Merkowitz show how the dominance of partisanship as a decision cue has fundamentally transformed our understanding of both political and non-political behavior.

Can features of surveys, such as question ordering and informational stimuli, affect respondent self-reported partisanship? We report the results of two studies to examine how the survey environment affects the probability that a respondent identifies with a particular party and presidential approval conditional on self-reported partisanship. In an original experiment, we find that, under some circumstances, a question-ordering treatment increases Republican partisanship. The estimated effects are statistically different from zero in unweighted specifications where leaners are excluded from the definition of Republicans and also among respondents who identified as Republicans in previous survey waves. In our second study, we show that an informational intervention reduces the probability that a respondent identifies as an Independent and that including post-treatment partisanship in a regression changes the estimated treatment effect of informational interventions on presidential approval. Our analysis shows that seemingly minor features of survey design can affect self-reported partisanship, average outcomes for different partisans, and treatment effect estimates. We discuss the implications of our findings for survey design and theories of partisan identification and presidential approval.

Dem Begriff der "Parteilichkeit" (partisanship) ist in den Sozial- und Geschichtswissenschaften bislang weniger Beachtung geschenkt worden als dem der "Objektivität". Der Autor setzt sich in seinem Beitrag mit zwei Fragestellungen auseinander: die eine befaßt sich mit der politischen oder ideologischen Dimension des Forschungsprozesses und der Forschungsergebnisse, die andere mit den Schlüssen, die sich hieraus für die subjektive Einstellung bzw. das leitende Interesse des Wissenschaftlers ergeben. Am Beispiel des Verhältnisses von Wissenschaft und Partei in der Anfangsphase der UdSSR werden die Grenzen aufgezeigt, bis zu denen die Parteilichkeit noch wissenschaftliche legitimiert ist. Im Anschluß hieran wird dargelegt, welche Erkenntnisfortschritte und praktisch-politische Fortschritte die richtigverstandene Parteilichkeit von Wissenschaftlern hervorbrachte. Die Parteinahme von Wissenschaftlern kann demnach durchaus ein Mechanismus sein, neue Ideen, neue Fragestellungen an die Wissenschaft heranzutragen und so deren Selbstisolierung aufzuheben. Ein Verzicht auf Parteilichkeit würde für die Humanwissenschaften ein schweres Risiko bedeuten. (NG)