Suchergebnisse

Prior research shows that partisan bias affects evaluations of people in nonpolitical settings, but it is unclear to what extent this bias informs evaluations of objects other than people in similar contexts. This is an important limitation given the frequency with which brands, locations, and products are associated with parties and political figures. We examine whether partisan bias influences evaluations of inanimate objects in the same way that it does evaluations of people. The results of four survey experiments show that partisans evaluate objects linked to the opposing party less favorably than otherwise identical nonpartisan objects. Moreover, the influence of partisan bias on evaluations of people is comparable in magnitude to the influence of bias on evaluations of various inanimate objects. We interpret these findings through the lens of conflict extension theory by suggesting that conflict between partisans has extended from policy-based to social identity-based conflict even in nonpolitical settings.

AbstractLegislators might rely on their partisan base for electoral support—what scholars call their normal vote—or they may cultivate support among nonpartisans through casework or constituency service—what scholars call a personal vote. Previous research frequently argues that legislators face a tradeoff between pursuing the normal vote and a personal vote as traditionally defined, often focusing on resources used by incumbents to build their personal vote. In contrast, we argue that securing the support of partisans and nonpartisans alike should be evaluated based on how a legislator performs in office, and that the so-called normal and personal vote need not be viewed as in conflict. We evaluate our claims using data from state legislative elections following redistricting, focusing on legislative professionalism to measure the resources available to incumbents that they might use to cultivate a personal note.

▪ Abstract  Recent commentary points to clear increases in ideological polarization between the major American political parties. We review the theoretical and empirical literature on party polarization and partisan change. We begin by comparing the current period both to earlier political eras and to theories of partisan change. We argue that in the current period the parties have grown increasingly divided on all the major policy dimensions in American politics—a process that we term conflict extension. We discuss various perspectives on increases in polarization between the parties in government, the parties in the electorate, and the parties' activists, and we consider the causal links between polarization at each of these levels. We consider whether American society itself, and not just the parties and their identifiers, has become increasingly polarized. Finally, we discuss the consequences of growing party polarization for American political life.