IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v10y2022i4p325-335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negative Party Identification and the Use of Party Cues in the Direct Democratic Context

Author

Listed:
  • Maxime Walder

    (Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Switzerland)

  • Oliver Strijbis

    (Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland / Division of Communication, History, and Politics, Franklin University Switzerland, Switzerland)

Abstract

The use of party cues is a fundamental process of how voters adopt policy preferences. While research has shown that party identification is an important driver of political attitudes in general and policy positions in particular, we know little about how negative party identification (identifying as an opponent to a party) impacts voters’ political preferences. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature by combining an experimental and observational empirical analysis of the effect of negative party identification on voters’ issue preferences in the context of direct democratic decision‐making. First, we analyze a survey experiment conducted during a real‐world campaign on affordable housing for a popular ballot in Switzerland. Using continuous measures of party identification, we show a causal relationship between negative party identification and voters’ policy preferences. Second, we use longitudinal observational data of vote choice on direct democratic policy proposals and show that voters adopt policy preferences that contrast with the policy positions of parties they oppose. In sum, the two complementary designs show that voters tend to position themselves not only in alignment with their preferred parties but also in opposition to parties with which they negatively identify. Furthermore, the results indicate that, when adopting policy preferences, negative cues may carry as much weight as positive party cues. Our analysis has important implications for understanding voters’ adoption of policy preferences in general and specifically in the direct democratic context.

Suggested Citation

  • Maxime Walder & Oliver Strijbis, 2022. "Negative Party Identification and the Use of Party Cues in the Direct Democratic Context," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 325-335.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:325-335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/5702
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aronow, Peter M. & Baron, Jonathon & Pinson, Lauren, 2019. "A Note on Dropping Experimental Subjects who Fail a Manipulation Check," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 572-589, October.
    2. Alan Abramowitz & Jennifer McCoy, 2019. "United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 137-156, January.
    3. Cheryl Boudreau & Scott A. MacKenzie, 2014. "Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 48-62, January.
    4. Klar, Samara & Leeper, Thomas & Robison, Joshua, 2020. "Studying Identities with Experiments: Weighing the Risk of Posttreatment Bias Against Priming Effects," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 56-60, April.
    5. Slothuus, Rune & Bisgaard, Martin, 2021. "Party over Pocketbook? How Party Cues Influence Opinion When Citizens Have a Stake in Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 1090-1096, August.
    6. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 63-76, March.
    7. Logan Dancey & Geoffrey Sheagley, 2013. "Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 312-325, April.
    8. Jacob M. Montgomery & Brendan Nyhan & Michelle Torres, 2018. "How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(3), pages 760-775, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandro Nai & Diego Garzia & Loes Aaldering & Frederico Ferreira da Silva & Katjana Gattermann, 2022. "For a Research Agenda on Negative Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 243-246.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    2. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    3. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    4. Diament, Sean M. & Kaya, Ayse & Magenheim, Ellen B., 2022. "Frames that matter: Increasing the willingness to get the Covid-19 vaccines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    5. Dino P. Christenson & Douglas L. Kriner, 2017. "Constitutional Qualms or Politics as Usual? The Factors Shaping Public Support for Unilateral Action," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 335-349, April.
    6. Ariane Wenger & Michael Stauffacher & Irina Dallo, 2021. "Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Nicole Wu, 2023. "“Restrict foreigners, not robots”: Partisan responses to automation threat," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 505-528, July.
    8. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    9. Daniele, Gianmarco & Geys, Benny, 2012. "Public support for institutionalised solidarity: Europeans' reaction to the establishment of eurobonds," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2012-112, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    10. Alan Blinder & Alan Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Working Papers 875, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    11. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    12. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    13. Kumlin, Staffan, 2000. "Ideology-driven public opinion formation in Europe: The case of third sector attitudes in Sweden," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 00-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    15. Aldashev, Gani, 2010. "Political Information Acquisition for Social Exchange," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, April.
    16. Kirchgässner Gebhard, 2001. "Direkte Volksrechte und die Effizienz des demokratischen Staates," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 52(1), pages 155-174, January.
    17. Stutzer, Alois & Baltensperger, Michael & Meier, Armando N., 2018. "Overstrained Citizens?," Working papers 2018/25, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    18. Danny Hayes & Seth C. McKee, 2009. "The Participatory Effects of Redistricting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 1006-1023, October.
    19. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution," IEW - Working Papers 167, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Devorah Manekin & Reed M. Wood, 2020. "Framing the Narrative: Female Fighters, External Audience Attitudes, and Transnational Support for Armed Rebellions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(9), pages 1638-1665, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:325-335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.