There are numerous examples of mass number of the electorate leaving one party and opting for another. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that in 2015 almost 25% of young Americans who branded themselves Republican or conservative leaning abandoned their party for the Democrats (Jukam, 2017). Party attachment is a concept that has been studied in depth, most commonly as influencer of political behavior, notably voting behavior. While it is clear that partisanship is an effective predictor of not only voting behavior but public opinion, research of party attachment has failed to effectively explain the phenomenon of party switching.
Research shows that individuals often tightly hold on to their partisan ideology, but what happens when individuals release their grip? This paper’s aim is to examine whether or not party attachment has a breaking point. Or more plainly, does specific party action negatively impact on individual partisanship? Understanding if partisan attachment has a breaking point is key to understanding surprising electoral or referendum results, the consequences of specific party actions, and even a new understanding of voter apathy and decreased political engagement. Determining if party attachment has a threshold will ultimately shed new light on the political behavior of constituents. Literature Review Literature on party attachment ranges in scope from consequence of political behavior of the electorate to representative’s party switching and the associated political cost.
However, to have a clear understanding of party switching or threshold, comprehension of political attachment needs to be understood. Party attachment is highly correlated to parent party affiliation. Early wisdom on political attachment can be summed up in the words of Herbert Hyman who wrote “a man is born into his political party just as he is born into future membership to the church of his parents (Hyman, 1959, p 74).” While Hyman and other political scholars focused on the acquisition of a political identity, others focused on the strength of party identification.
Following the work of other authors who supported the parent transmission model of partisan attachment Campbell and Converse suggest in The American Voter that partisan identification strengthens as the gain experience with the electoral system. Campbell and Converse’s work suggest that partisanship is a psychological attachment. Partisanship as a psychological attachment (rather than a social one) generated two competing views of partisanship; instrumental and expressive partisanship. This body of works provides an excellent framework for understanding the strength of party attachment through psychological identity concepts, however it is limited because it only focuses on the composition of party attachment rather than challenges to that attachment.
The instrumental model of partisanship is entrenched in the rational choice paradigm that posits that voters keep track and are aware of overall party performance, ideological beliefs and how close the party is to personal policy preference. In the instrumental model they are a series of factors that influence party loyalty such as candidate evaluations, presidential approval, economic evaluation and more. (Fiorina, 1980).
In contrast, the expressive model theorizes that partisanship is intrinsic to identity and that it strengthens when it interacts with an individual’s social groups such as gender, religion, or race. The relationship between social groups and (Green, 2002). While both models are compelling and provide empirical evidence, it is clear that that a zero-sum model does not explain the variance of vote choice and public opinion. In an article by Huddy and Bankert titled Political Partisanship as a Social Identity the authors argue that a strong emotional attachment is more likely to occur during the course of a presidential election. The expressive model of partisanship promotes motivated reasoning which increases the “stickiness” of party attachment which in turn promotes political action.
However, as competition between parties subsides the role of political determinants, expressed in the instrumental model, become more relevant. Huddy and Bankert’s work lays the groundwork for research that integrates both the instrumental and expressive models for a new foundation of partisanship. However, the authors their limited scope to the expressive model and the strength of partisanship through that model does not address the consequences of party action on partisan identification.
Theory Social Identity Theory provides the framework for the observation of partisanship and political behavior, specifically political involvement. Social Identity Theory postulates that the need for group belonging is internalized at various levels of intensity which result in a spectrum of strengths for identity (Tajfel, 1981). Partisanship being intrinsic to identity under the expressive model, and Social Identity Theory demonstrating that identity is actualized at different strengths allows us to posit that partisanship will be internalized at various strengths. Once group identity has been solidified members are motivated to protect the interests of their respective groups (Huddy, 2001). Social Identity Theory lays the for strong partisan attachment and the measures individuals will go through to stay loyal to their party. Hypothesis. Partisan attachment arguably relies a great deal on perceived shared values. Questionably, this is where a portion of the strength of party attachment is based in.
Social Identity Theory allows for understanding of why party attachment is so sticky. Huddy’s article on partisanship as a social identity demonstrates that both instrumental and expressive partisanship is at work within the electorate. Social Identity Theory only discusses a portion of why party attachment is so sticky but fails to discuss the role of shared values. In an article by Stanley Feldman, the author discussed how ideology and behavior may be related, but ideology is not a sufficient explainer of political behavior. The authors reasons that values play a more significant role in shaping political behavior. Political attachment and values inform political behavior, then it follows that a violation of these values would negatively impact self- identified behavior.
The central independent variable of this study is exposure to fabricated news stories that violate both the Republican and Democratic established set of shared values as outlined in their party manifestos. The central dependent variable of this study is level of political attachment on the individual level.
Using the framework of instrumental and expressive partisanship, under the assumption that the electorate is a mix of both, I hypothesize that constituents that are instrumentally partisan are more likely to switch to the opposing party when the party violates assumed shared values. For those who are instrumentally partisan I hypothesize that those who are instrumentally partisan and less politically sophisticated are more likely to lose trust in political actors and institutions and politically disengage. Process Because partisanship threshold is such an individualistic measure the best way to asses this is through self-reporting. Participants will be selected from a convenience sample of undergraduate and graduate students at Indiana University.
Participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire prior to and following the treatment. The questionnaire will include a battery of question to asses age, sex (coded 1 = female, 0 = male), and ideology (coded 1 = right leaning, 0 = left leaning) *. Note that ideology is termed right and left leaning to allow for generalizability to other countries. The questionnaire will also include an assessment of party attachment; participants will rank how well they feel their self-identified party represent them currently. The scale will rank from 0-6, 0 being does not represent me at all, 3 being represent me somewhat and 6 represents me perfectly. In addition to the assessment of party attachment, participants will be assessed on level on likelihood of political engagement. The participants will rank on a scale 0-6 how likely they are to participate in the next major election (primary, midterms, or presidential), 0 being not likely at all, 3 being somewhat likely and 6 being very likely.
Participants will then be sorted into one of three groups; a control group and one of two treatment groups. The control group will receive articles that reaffirm traditional party values. The first treatment group will receive articles that frame a drastic shift away from conventional conservative values (i.e. support for relaxed immigration laws, support for universal healthcare, increased social spending). The second treatment group will receive the same treatment with, except with a drastic shift away from normative “liberal” values (i.e. decreased social spending, tougher immigration laws, decreased support for environmental welfare).
All articles provide to participants will be framed as if from mainstream print or online sources to maintain a semblance of a natural environment. After each group has experienced the treatment, each participant will complete the posttest (same as the pre-test). If the experiment holds internal validity, analysis of the pre and post questionnaires should reveal a shift in expected political engagement as well as political representation.
Partisanship is often thought as a salient part of identity, yet very little research is done on the consequences of violating partisanship norms. Because partisanship is a fairly reliable predictor of behavior the violation of that partisan identity should be an equally important predictor. This experiment aims to understand the relationship between political identity and a threshold in the hopes of creating a fuller knowledge of political behavior, yet it is not clear that the proposed method of data collection would be a robust way to measure that relationship.
The internal validity of the proposed experiment is questionable with closer observation. This experiment relies first on self-reporting of political leaning and likelihood of civic engagement. The reliance of self-reporting in respect to civic engagement likely encourages the social desirability bias among participants which would likely significantly alter result.
Not only is the social desirability bias likely, but this experiment relies on the fact that participants believe that the fabricated articles are true, given the experimental nature, it may be likely that the treatment has no effect. While the question of political attachment and party behavior is still sound, the hypothesis might be better analyzed through a historical cross-sectional analysis of times of major electorate party switching. Using surveys such as the American National Election Survey or Pew Research Center so as to rely on hard data rather than contextualized self-reports
