IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v663y2016i1p229-269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Changing Dynamics of Class and Culture in American Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Duane F. Alwin
  • Paula A. TufiÅŸ

Abstract

This article investigates the implications of Thomas Frank’s “conservative backlash†thesis that cultural cleavages have become much more important in contemporary American political life relative to traditional socioeconomic bases for political differentiation. We frame our research within the recent literature on the “polarization†of the electorate with respect to social and cultural issues. Using Hunter’s “culture war†imagery, we examine the extent to which opposing cultural forces on issues of abortion, gay rights, women’s extra-familial labor force participation, and child-rearing have become more important in shaping political identities and party preferences. We use data from twenty-six nationally representative surveys of the General Social Survey (GSS) from 1974 through 2010, and we find evidence of polarization in the liberal-conservative identities of respondents. We find that occupational class had a clear and consistent relationship to political views, which is relatively stable over time. We also find that cultural views are related to political identities, and that most features of the cultural component in our analysis are increasingly associated with liberal political views. Our results favor an interpretation of a changing role of cultural orientations in shaping political identities and provide tentative support for Frank’s “Kansas hypothesis†as revealed in the GSS data.

Suggested Citation

  • Duane F. Alwin & Paula A. TufiÅŸ, 2016. "The Changing Dynamics of Class and Culture in American Politics," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 663(1), pages 229-269, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:663:y:2016:i:1:p:229-269
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716215596974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716215596974
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716215596974?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John H. Evans, 2003. "Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized?—An Update," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(1), pages 71-90, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    2. Raquel Fernández & Sahar Parsa, 2022. "Gay Politics Goes Mainstream: Democrats, Republicans and Same‐sex Relationships," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(S1), pages 86-109, June.
    3. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    4. Keith Poole, 2007. "Changing minds? Not in Congress!," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 435-451, June.
    5. Ugur Ozdemir & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2014. "Measuring Public Preferential Polarization," Working Papers hal-00954497, HAL.
    6. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.
    7. Jacob R. Brown & Enrico Cantoni & Ryan D. Enos & Vincent Pons & Emilie Sartre, 2023. "The increase in partisan segregation in the United States," Discussion Papers 2023-09, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    8. Cheuk Hang Au & Kevin K. W. Ho & Dickson K.W. Chiu, 2022. "The Role of Online Misinformation and Fake News in Ideological Polarization: Barriers, Catalysts, and Implications," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1331-1354, August.
    9. Philipp Lorenz-Spreen & Stephan Lewandowsky & Cass R. Sunstein & Ralph Hertwig, 2020. "How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 1102-1109, November.
    10. Christina Biedny & Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Exploring Polarization in US Food Policy Opinions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 434-454, September.
    11. Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay & Kalyan Chatterjee & Jaideep Roy, 2020. "Extremist Platforms: Political Consequences Of Profit‐Seeking Media," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1173-1193, August.
    12. Sara K. Yeo & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele, 2015. "Selecting Our Own Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 172-191, March.
    13. Andreas Flache, 2018. "About Renegades And Outgroup Haters: Modeling The Link Between Social Influence And Intergroup Attitudes," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-32, September.
    14. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    15. Ramón José Torregrosa Montaner, 2017. "Public good provision and social loss under polarization," Working Papers. Serie AD 2017-03, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    16. Sarah K. Cowan, 2013. "Cohort Abortion Measures for the United States," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(2), pages 289-307, June.
    17. Jae Lee, 2015. "Assessing Mass Opinion Polarization in the US Using Relative Distribution Method," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 124(2), pages 571-598, November.

    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:sae:anname:v:663:y:2016:i:1:p:229-269. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.