The Ambivalent Partisan

The authors of this book demonstrate that compared to other citizens, ambivalent partisans perceive the political world accurately, form their policy preferences in a principled manner, and communicate those preferences by making issues an important component of their electoral decisions.

Taking aim at decades of received wisdom, the central claim of this book is that high-quality political judgment hinges less on citizens' cognitive ability than on their willingness to temporarily suspend partisan habits and follow the 'evidence' wherever it leads. This occurs most readily when citizens experience a disjuncture between their stable political 'identities' and their contemporary 'evaluations' of party performance, a state the authors refer to as 'partisan ambivalence'.

Studies show that going negative does not always work in political campaigns, and yet candidates and consultants are rational people whose experience has persuaded them that it can be a winning strategy under the right circumstances. As scholars continue to explore what those circumstances might be, recent work by Lavine, Johnston, and Steenbergen (2012), suggests that when a stimulus/cue prompts partisan ambivalence, motivated reasoning should vitiate and a focus on the substance of the frame should increase. Based on this logic, it follows that a campaign attack against one's opponent will be more effective among voters who express a mix of positive and negative feelings toward the parties because they are more focused on the substance of the attack than those who are less ambivalent. The following study uses experimental data derived from a national Internet survey of registered voters to examine the effectiveness of both campaign attacks and candidates' responses (rebuttals) to those attacks among subjects with varying levels of partisan ambivalence. Our results show that ambivalence plays an occasionally meaningful but inconsistent moderating role across a range of campaign scenarios, more so with attacks than with responses.

A compelling exploration of concrete strategies to reduce partisan animosity by building on what Democrats and Republicans have in common. One of the defining features of twenty-first-century American politics is the rise of affective polarization: Americans increasingly not only disagree with those from the other party but distrust and dislike them as well. This has toxic downstream consequences for both politics and social relationships. Is there any solution? Our Common Bonds shows that—although there is no silver bullet that will eradicate partisan animosity—there are concrete interventions that can reduce it. Matthew Levendusky argues that partisan animosity stems in part from partisans’ misperceptions of one another. Democrats and Republicans think they have nothing in common, but this is not true. Drawing on survey and experimental evidence, the book shows that it is possible to help partisans reframe the lens through which they evaluate the out-party by priming commonalities—specifically, shared identities outside of politics, cross-party friendships, and common issue positions and values identified through civil cross-party dialogue. Doing so lessons partisan animosity, and it can even reduce ideological polarization. The book discusses what these findings mean for real-world efforts to bridge the partisan divide.

Exploring the extent and nature of attitudinal ambivalence on public policy issue, these essays by distinguished scholars of public opinion examine citizens' conflicting attitudes about abortion, gay rights, environmental protection and property rights, crime and the police and church-state relations. Linking ambivalence with a complex structure of belief, the contributors link the effects of ambivalence on information processing, the formation of policy preferences, and the impact of those policy preferences on voters' decisons. Using multiple approaches to measurement and research design, this volume helps build a sturdy foundation of knowledge about the phonomenon of ambivalence and its effects on politics. The concluding chapter provides an overview of our progress in understanding the effects of ambivalence on public opinion.

This book explains how deep-seated personality traits shape citizens' attitudes toward economic redistribution, and what it means for American democracy. It will be of interest to researchers from across the social sciences, as well as citizens, pundits, political observers, and commentators from across the political spectrum.

The psychology behind political partisanship: “The kind of research that will change not just how you think about the world but how you think about yourself.” —Ezra Klein, Vox Political polarization in America has moved beyond disagreements about matters of policy. For the first time in decades, research has shown that members of both parties hold strongly unfavorable views of their opponents. This is polarization rooted in social identity, and it is growing. The campaign and election of Donald Trump laid bare this fact of the American electorate, its successful rhetoric of “us versus them” tapping into a powerful current of anger and resentment. With Uncivil Agreement, Lilliana Mason looks at the growing social gulf across racial, religious, and cultural lines, which have recently come to divide neatly between the two major political parties. She argues that group identifications have changed the way we think and feel about ourselves and our opponents. Even when Democrats and Republicans can agree on policy outcomes, they tend to view one other with distrust and to work for party victory over all else. Although the polarizing effects of social divisions have simplified our electoral choices and increased political engagement, they have not been a force that is, on balance, helpful for American democracy. Bringing together theory from political science and social psychology, Uncivil Agreement clearly describes this increasingly “social” type of polarization, and adds much to our understanding of contemporary politics.

Examining the nature of public opinion in democratic societies, this Handbook succinctly illustrates the importance of public opinion as an instrument of popular control and democratic accountability. Expert contributors in the field provide a thorough review of a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of this timely topic.

Based on cutting-edge global data, the Research Handbook of Political Partisanship argues that partisanship is down, but not out, in contemporary democracies. Engaging with key scholarly debates, from the rise of right-wing partisanship to the effects of digitalization on partisanship, contributions highlight the significance of political partisanship not only in the present but in the future of democracies internationally.