The Motivated Partisan: A Dual Motivations Theory of Partisan Change and Stability.

Is party identification highly stable or regularly updated? Is party identification an impediment to democratic accountability or a helpful shortcut? Political scientists have debated the answers to these questions for fifty years. This dissertation incorporates intuition from both of the two dominant camps in this debate, arguing that partisan dynamics are shaped by competing motives. This theory is tested through a series of four original experiments and analysis of survey data from the American National Election Studies. By bringing partisans’ attitudes and party identities into conflict with one another, I am able to observe the methods that partisans use to reconcile their motives and defend their identities. By inhibiting partisans’ ability to deploy these defenses, I am able to induce party identification change among the most vulnerable partisans. Through a survey experiment, I observe how salient political evaluations can create identity pressure during surveys and how respondents go about resolving this pressure. Finally, by priming instrumental concerns versus expressive concerns, the motivational underpinnings of partisan responsiveness are clarified. Specifically, party identification change results from the desire to appear pragmatic—a norm of civic duty—and not from the drive to attain policy benefits. Implications for partisan dynamics, the responsiveness of the electorate, and our understanding of democratic accountability are discussed.Ph.D.Political ScienceUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64587/1/egroenen_1.pd

Of dark clouds and silver linings: Effects of exposure to issue versus candidate advertising on persuasion, information retention, and issue salience

In this study, we examine the impact of sponsorship cites in issue versus candidate advertising on perceived credibility, persuasion, information retention, and priming of message-relevant issues. Theories of persuasion and attitude change suggest that citizens should react differently to the same message when source cues are varied. In an experiment, adult participants saw either an actual ad sponsored by the Sierra Club, an edited version in which Al Gore was depicted as the sponsor, or no ad at all. Although participants were slightly less able to correctly identify the sponsor of the issue ad, the ad was seen as more credible and persuasive than the candidate-sponsored version. Though both were negative in tone, the issue ad did not depress participatory intentions as much as the candidate ad. Participants also retained more information from the issue appeal. Finally, the issue ad was a more powerful prime for message-relevant performance criteria in evaluations of the target, George W. Bush. The implications of these findings for the ongoing debate on campaignfinance reform are discussed

Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems

Why does party identification motivate citizens to participate in politics? From a theoretical standpoint, it is in a partisan\u27s self-interest to free ride on the efforts of others. Yet, mere identification with a party is enough to motivate many people to overcome this structural hurdle. We theorize that, by virtue of aligning one\u27s self with a party, individuals become more likely to react to their political environment with anger and enthusiasm rather than fear. Anger and enthusiasm are associated with approach and continuation of current behavior, while fear triggers behavior reconsideration. In short, party identification stimulates participation via anger and enthusiasm. On the other hand, fear produces thought but not much action. We find support for our model using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and an original laboratory experiment. © 2013 International Society of Political Psychology

Intraparty polarization in american politics

Research shows that elite polarization and mass sorting have led to an explosion of hostility between parties, but how do Republicans and Democrats feel toward their own respective parties? Have these trends led to more cohesion or more division within parties? Using the American National Election Studies time series, we first show that intraparty polarization between ideologically extreme and ideologically moderate partisans is on the rise. Second, we demonstrate that this division within parties has important implications for how we think about affective polarization between parties. Specifically, the distribution of relative affect between parties has not become bimodal but merely dispersed. Thus, while the mean partisan has become affectively polarized, the modal partisan has not. These results suggest polarization and sorting may be increasing the viability of third-party candidates and making realignment more likely

Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation

Political behavior is triggered by the presence of a variety of material and cognitive resources, including political efficacy. The dominant view conceptualizes efficacy as capital, used to overcome obstacles to participation. Our theory suggests that unlike other resources, efficacy aids in the development of habitual participation by activating a particular negative emotion, anger. Using the 1990-1992 NES Panel, we find that internal efficacy boosts participation in part by facilitating anger, but not fear, in response to policy threats. This partial mediating effect operates primarily among younger citizens who are in the process of developing the habit of participation. External efficacy, because it is not self-referential, is not causally linked to participation via emotions. Finally, internal efficacy is enhanced by successful participation in politics, closing a feedback loop that helps explain participatory habits. © 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Election night\u27s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation

A large literature has established a persistent association between the skills and resources citizens possess and their likelihood of participating in politics. However, the short-term motivational forces that cause citizens to employ those skills and expend resources in one election but not the next have only recently received attention. Findings in political psychology suggest specific emotions may play an important role in mobilization, but the question of \u27which emotions play what role\u27? remains an important area of debate. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory and the Affective Intelligence model, we predict that anger, more than anxiety or enthusiasm, will mobilize. We find evidence for the distinctive influence of anger in a randomized experiment, a national survey of the 2008 electorate, and in pooled American National Election Studies from 1980 to 2004. © 2011 Southern Political Science Association