Startseite What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?

  • Yphtach Lelkes EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. November 2021
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill
Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet
The Forum
Aus der Zeitschrift The Forum Band 19 Heft 3

Abstract

Negative partisanship is one of the most popular explanations for current levels of dysfunction in American politics. Yet, the term is used inconsistently in both academic research and the popular press. It is sometimes referred to as negative affect towards the out-party that is a more important predictor of political behavior than positive affect towards the in-party. It is also sometimes referred to as a negational identity, wherein identification with one party is founded upon not being identified with the other party. In this essay, I first review the two definitions of negative partisanship and their preponderance in the mass public. Counter some reports, disdain is not more prevalent than warmth. Next, I discuss new evidence which shows that partisan disdain and negational partisanship are mutually exclusive concepts. Finally, in a reanalysis of published work, I reexamine the evidence that purportedly shows that negative partisanship is a better explanation for political behavior than positive partisanship.

Keywords: negative partisanship; polarization; affective polarization; public opinion
Corresponding author: Yphtach Lelkes, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, E-mail:
I‘m grateful to Nic Dias and Sean Westwood for helpful feedback.
Appendix

Table A1:

Multinomial logit model predicting information sharing type by negational-to-affirmational identity.

All Republicans Democrats
Intercept: Attack other side −0.95* −0.70* −1.03*
  [−1.18; −0.71] [−1.16; −0.73] [−1.16; −0.73]
Intercept: Attack own side −1.67* −1.36* −1.82*
  [−2.01; −1.33] [−1.96; −1.38] [−2.02; −1.32]
Intercept: Promote own side −0.66* −0.81* −0.61*
  [−0.90; −0.42] [−0.88; −0.45] [−0.90; −0.42]
Intercept: Promote other side −1.68* −2.01* −1.55*
  [−1.96; −1.40] [−1.95; −1.41] [−1.94; −1.42]
Identity: Attack other side −0.01 −0.11 0.03
  [−0.07; 0.05] [−0.06; 0.05] [−0.07; 0.05]
Identity: Attack own side −0.11* −0.18* −0.08*
  [−0.20; −0.02] [−0.19; −0.03] [−0.20; −0.02]
Identity: Promote own side −0.10* −0.03* −0.13*
  [−0.16; −0.04] [−0.16; −0.04] [−0.16; −0.04]
Identity: Promote other side −0.05 −0.00 −0.07
  [−0.12; 0.02] [−0.11; 0.01] [−0.12; 0.02]
Aware of demos: Attack other side 0.27* 0.22* 0.30*
  [0.06; 0.47] [0.09; 0.44] [0.09; 0.44]
Aware of demos: Attack own side 0.28* 0.33 0.24*
  [0.02; 0.54] [−0.01; 0.57] [0.04; 0.51]
Aware of demos: Promote own side 0.07 −0.29 0.21
  [−0.13; 0.26] [−0.15; 0.28] [−0.10; 0.24]
Aware of demos: Promote other side 0.47* 0.78* 0.34*
  [0.20; 0.74] [0.22; 0.72] [0.26; 0.69]
AIC 9165.36 2787.22 6374.89
Log Likelihood −4570.68 −1381.61 −3175.45
Num. obs. 3282 993 2289

References

Abramowitz, A. I., and S. Webster. 2016a. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41: 12–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Abramowitz, A. I., and S. Webster. 2016b. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of Us Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41: 12–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Abramowitz, A. I., and S. Webster. 2017. ‘Negative Partisanship’ Explains Everything. Also available at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/negative-partisanship-explains-everything-215534/.Suche in Google Scholar

Acharya, A., M. Blackwell, and M. Sen. 2018. “Analyzing Causal Mechanisms in Survey Experiments.” Political Analysis 26 (4): 357–78, https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.19.Suche in Google Scholar

Allport, G. W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Suche in Google Scholar

Bankert, A. 2018. Experimental Evidence of the Origins and Effects of Negative Partisanship. Boston: American Political Science Association.10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0282Suche in Google Scholar

Bankert, A. 2020a. “Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09599-1.Suche in Google Scholar

Bankert, A. 2020b. “The Origins and Effect of Negative Partisanship.” In Research Handbook on Political Partisanship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788111997.00012.Suche in Google Scholar

Brady, W. J., and J. J. Van Bavel. 2021. Social Identity Shapes Antecedents and Functional Outcomes of Moral Emotion Expression in Online Networks. OSF Preprints. Also available at https://www.osf.io/dgt6u.10.31219/osf.io/dgt6uSuche in Google Scholar

Caruana, N. J., R. M. McGregor, and L. B. Stephenson. 2015. “The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 771–89, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914000882.Suche in Google Scholar

Collier, D., and J. E. Mahon. 1993. “Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review 87 (4): 845–55, https://doi.org/10.2307/2938818.Suche in Google Scholar

Costa, M. 2021. “Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want from Political Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 65 (2): 342–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12571.Suche in Google Scholar

Fisher, S., and Y. Lelkes. 2021. “The Internet and Affective Polarization.” In Our Online Emotional Selves: The Link between Digital Media and Emotional Experiences, edited by R. Nabi, and J. Myrick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Geertz, C. 1994. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, edited by M. Martin, and L. C. McIntyre, 213–32. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gerber, A. S., G. A. Huber, and E. Washington. 2010. “Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 720–44, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000407.Suche in Google Scholar

Gerring, J. 1999. “What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences.” Polity 31 (3): 357–93, https://doi.org/10.2307/3235246.Suche in Google Scholar

Grimmer, J. 2012. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why it Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139207782Suche in Google Scholar

Huang, S., and Y. Lelkes. 2021. What Gets Shared? (Working Paper).Suche in Google Scholar

Imai, K., L. Keele, D. Tingley, and T. Yamamoto. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 765–89, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000414.Suche in Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., G. Sood, and Y. Lelkes. 2012. Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76 (3): 405–31.10.1093/poq/nfs038Suche in Google Scholar

Jordan, J. J., and D. G. Rand. 2020. “Signaling when No One Is Watching: A Reputation Heuristics Account of Outrage and Punishment in One-Shot Anonymous Interactions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118 (1): 57, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000186.Suche in Google Scholar

Lee, A. H.-y., Y. Lelkes, C. B. Hawkins, and G. Alexander. 2021. Why So Negative? Negative Partisanship is Not More Prevalent than Positive Partisanship (Working paper).10.31235/osf.io/se7x4Suche in Google Scholar

Lee, F. E. 2009. Beyond Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470771.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Medeiros, M., and A. Noël. 2014. “The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo-American Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (7): 1022–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488560.Suche in Google Scholar

Mohammad, S. M., and P. D. Turney. 2013. “Crowdsourcing a Word–Emotion Association Lexicon.” Computational Intelligence 29 (3): 436–65, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Mounk, Y. 2019. “Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/.Suche in Google Scholar

Rathje, S., J. J. Van Bavel, and S. van der Linden. 2021. “Out-group Animosity Drives Engagement on Social Media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (26), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118.Suche in Google Scholar

Tajfel, H. 1974. “Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour.” Social Science Information 13 (2): 65–93, https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204.Suche in Google Scholar

Webster, S. W. 2020. American Rage: How Anger Shapes our Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108868303Suche in Google Scholar

Webster, S. W., E. C. Connors, and B. Sinclair. 2020. The Social Consequences of Political Anger (Working paper).Suche in Google Scholar

Zhong, C. B., K. W. Phillips, G. J. Leonardelli, and A. D. Galinsky. 2008. “Negational Categorization and Intergroup Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (6): 793–806, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315457.Suche in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2021-11-29

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Introduction Fall 2021
  4. Articles
  5. It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization
  6. When Rural and Urban Become “Us” versus “Them”: How a Growing Divide is Reshaping American Politics
  7. Tribes and Proto-Tribes: The Deep Roots of Political Differences
  8. The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
  9. The Legacy of Rush Limbaugh Will Always Be Tied to Donald Trump
  10. Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity
  11. What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
  12. Religion as Political Tribalism
  13. The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
  14. Book Review
  15. Andrea Benjamin: Racial Coalition Building in Local Elections: Elite Cues and Cross-Ethnic Voting
https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2021-2027
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
negative partisanship; polarization; affective polarization; public opinion

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Introduction Fall 2021
  4. Articles
  5. It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization
  6. When Rural and Urban Become “Us” versus “Them”: How a Growing Divide is Reshaping American Politics
  7. Tribes and Proto-Tribes: The Deep Roots of Political Differences
  8. The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
  9. The Legacy of Rush Limbaugh Will Always Be Tied to Donald Trump
  10. Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity
  11. What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
  12. Religion as Political Tribalism
  13. The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
  14. Book Review
  15. Andrea Benjamin: Racial Coalition Building in Local Elections: Elite Cues and Cross-Ethnic Voting
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 8.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2021-2027/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen