The dual nature of American partisan affect: Examining the impact of inparty affinity and outparty animosity on unique forms of political behavior

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Social and Political Psychology Pub Date : 2023-06-16 DOI:10.5964/jspp.8135
Adi Wiezel, John K. Wagner
{"title":"The dual nature of American partisan affect: Examining the impact of inparty affinity and outparty animosity on unique forms of political behavior","authors":"Adi Wiezel, John K. Wagner","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much recent work has focused on Americans’ positive and negative feelings toward their own and opposing political parties. However, there is neither a consensus on how to model such partisan affect, nor a detailed understanding of its consequences for political participation. This work addressed these two gaps by first, empirically examining how many dimensions best characterize American partisan affect. Study 1A used contemporary, categorical approaches to factor analyses across an extensive set of partisan affect items from the Pew American Trends Panel to test two competing hypotheses: that (1A-1) partisan affect is one-dimensional, or that (1A-2) partisan affect is two-dimensional. Results suggested support for Hypothesis 1A-2; two dimensions of partisan affect covered inparty affinity and outparty animosity. Second, Study 1B investigated the predictive validity of different aspects of partisan affect in terms of discrete forms of political participation. Study 1B had three competing hypotheses implied by prior partisan affect literature: that (1B-1) outparty animosity (but not inparty affinity) would predict most forms of behavior, that (1B-2) outparty animosity would predict higher-cost forms of behavior, and inparty affinity would predict lower-cost forms of behavior, or that (1B-3) the combination/interaction of outparty animosity and inparty affinity would predict most forms of behavior. Results of logistic regressions suggested partial support for Hypothesis 1B-1 and direct support for Hypothesis 1B-2. Outparty animosity predicted more medium-cost forms of political participation, whereas inparty affinity predicted lower-cost forms of political participation. Implications are discussed for theory, the measurement of partisan affect, and the prediction of political participation.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much recent work has focused on Americans’ positive and negative feelings toward their own and opposing political parties. However, there is neither a consensus on how to model such partisan affect, nor a detailed understanding of its consequences for political participation. This work addressed these two gaps by first, empirically examining how many dimensions best characterize American partisan affect. Study 1A used contemporary, categorical approaches to factor analyses across an extensive set of partisan affect items from the Pew American Trends Panel to test two competing hypotheses: that (1A-1) partisan affect is one-dimensional, or that (1A-2) partisan affect is two-dimensional. Results suggested support for Hypothesis 1A-2; two dimensions of partisan affect covered inparty affinity and outparty animosity. Second, Study 1B investigated the predictive validity of different aspects of partisan affect in terms of discrete forms of political participation. Study 1B had three competing hypotheses implied by prior partisan affect literature: that (1B-1) outparty animosity (but not inparty affinity) would predict most forms of behavior, that (1B-2) outparty animosity would predict higher-cost forms of behavior, and inparty affinity would predict lower-cost forms of behavior, or that (1B-3) the combination/interaction of outparty animosity and inparty affinity would predict most forms of behavior. Results of logistic regressions suggested partial support for Hypothesis 1B-1 and direct support for Hypothesis 1B-2. Outparty animosity predicted more medium-cost forms of political participation, whereas inparty affinity predicted lower-cost forms of political participation. Implications are discussed for theory, the measurement of partisan affect, and the prediction of political participation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国党派影响的双重性质:检视党内亲和和党外敌意对独特政治行为形式的影响
最近的许多工作都集中在美国人对自己和反对政党的积极和消极情绪上。然而,对于如何模拟这种党派影响,既没有达成共识,也没有详细了解其对政治参与的影响。这项工作解决了这两个差距,首先,从经验上考察了美国党派影响的最佳特征。研究1A使用当代分类方法对皮尤美国趋势小组的一系列党派影响项目进行因素分析,以检验两个相互竞争的假设:(1A-1)党派影响是一维的,或(1A-2)党派影响也是二维的。结果表明支持假说1A-2;党派影响的两个维度包括党内亲和力和党外敌意。其次,研究1B调查了党派影响不同方面在离散政治参与形式方面的预测有效性。研究1B有三个先前党派情感文献暗示的相互竞争的假设:(1B-1)党外敌意(但不是党内亲和力)将预测大多数形式的行为,(1B-2)党外仇恨将预测更高成本的行为形式,而党内亲和力将预测更低成本的行为,或者(1B-3)党外敌意和党内亲和力的组合/相互作用将预测大多数形式的行为。逻辑回归结果表明部分支持假设1B-1,直接支持假设1B-2。党派外的敌意预测了更多中等成本的政治参与形式,而党派内的亲和力预测了更低成本的政治参加形式。讨论了对理论、党派影响的测量和政治参与的预测的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Journal of Social and Political Psychology Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
43
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.
期刊最新文献
Heterosexist system justification: Identity and ideology explain variability in sexual minorities’ opposition to homophobia and support for LGBTQ+ rights Predicting radicalism after perceived injustice: The role of separatist identity, sacred values, and police violence Gender inequality discourse as a tool to express attitudes towards Islam Colonial mechanisms for repudiating indigenous sovereignties in Australia: A Foucauldian-genealogical exploration of Australia day ‘Warming up’ to populist leaders: A comparative analysis of Argentina and Spain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1