How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation

Competition is a defining element of democracy. One of the most noteworthy events over the last quarter-century in U.S. politics is the change in the nature of elite party competition: The parties have become increasingly polarized. Scholars and pundits actively debate how these elite patterns influence polarization among the public (e.g., have citizens also become more ideologically polarized?). Yet, few have addressed what we see as perhaps more fundamental questions: Has elite polarization altered the way citizens arrive at their policy opinions in the first place and, if so, in what ways? We address these questions with a theory and two survey experiments (on the issues of drilling and immigration). We find stark evidence that polarized environments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions. Specifically, polarization intensifies the impact of party endorsements on opinions, decreases the impact of substantive information and, perhaps ironically, stimulates greater confidence in those—less substantively grounded—opinions. We discuss the implications for public opinion formation and the nature of democratic competition.

[1]  T. Ramsøy,et al.  Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues , 2013 .

[2]  W. Miller The Polarized America , 2013 .

[3]  Howard G. Lavine,et al.  The ambivalent partisan : how critical loyalty promotes democracy , 2012 .

[4]  Thomas J. Leeper,et al.  Is Public Opinion Stable? Resolving the Micro/Macro Disconnect in Studies of Public Opinion , 2012, Daedalus.

[5]  Thomas J. Leeper,et al.  Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects , 2012 .

[6]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Affect, Not Ideology A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization , 2012 .

[7]  Edward H. Stiglitz,et al.  The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning , 2012 .

[8]  Thomas J. Leeper,et al.  A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability , 2012, American Political Science Review.

[9]  J. Ura,et al.  Partisan Moods: Polarization and the Dynamics of Mass Party Preferences , 2012, The Journal of Politics.

[10]  Stephen P. Nicholson Polarizing Cues: POLARIZING CUES , 2012 .

[11]  Stephen P. Nicholson,et al.  Polarizing Cues , 2011 .

[12]  Stephen P. Nicholson Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence , 2011 .

[13]  Lilach Nir,et al.  Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion Perception , 2011 .

[14]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Strategies of Counter-Framing , 2011 .

[15]  Neil Malhotra,et al.  Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in congress: Evidence from survey experiments , 2011 .

[16]  H. D. Palmer,et al.  Polarization and Issue Consistency Over Time , 2011 .

[17]  L. Aarøe Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames , 2011 .

[18]  Jonathan White,et al.  On Partisan Political Justification , 2011, American Political Science Review.

[19]  John G. Bullock Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate , 2011, American Political Science Review.

[20]  G. Keren,et al.  Perspectives on framing , 2011 .

[21]  Edward L. Lascher,et al.  The Myth of the Independent Voter, California Style , 2011 .

[22]  Dominic D. P. Johnson,et al.  The evolution of overconfidence , 2009, Nature.

[23]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Identifying frames in political news , 2011 .

[24]  M. Petersen,et al.  Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic , 2011 .

[25]  J. Druckman,et al.  Perspectives on framing , 2011 .

[26]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time , 2010, American Political Science Review.

[27]  Natalie A. Wyer Selective Self-Categorization: Meaningful Categorization and the In-Group Persuasion Effect , 2010, The Journal of social psychology.

[28]  Eric R. A. N. Smith,et al.  The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling , 2010, Public understanding of science.

[29]  C. D. Vreese,et al.  Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects , 2010 .

[30]  Paul N. Goren,et al.  Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate , 2010 .

[31]  Hanspeter Kriesi,et al.  Political Framing Strategies and Their Impact on Media Framing in a Swiss Direct-Democratic Campaign , 2010 .

[32]  Rune Slothuus,et al.  When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment , 2010 .

[33]  Matthew Levendusky Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization , 2010 .

[34]  Andrew Jones On the politics of motivation. , 2010, The Health service journal.

[35]  A. Gerber,et al.  Problem Solving in a Polarized Age: Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Politicization of Evidence-Based Medicine , 2010 .

[36]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Competing Rhetoric Over Time: Frames Versus Cues , 2010, The Journal of Politics.

[37]  A. Gerber,et al.  Partisanship, Political Control, and Economic Assessments , 2010 .

[38]  Michael Bang Petersen,et al.  Political Parties and Value Consistency in Public Opinion Formation , 2010 .

[39]  Toby Bolsen,et al.  Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies , 2011 .

[40]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[41]  John R. Petrocik Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents , 2009 .

[42]  Paul N. Goren,et al.  Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression , 2009 .

[43]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Competing Frames in a Political Campaign , 2009 .

[44]  A. Gerber,et al.  Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior? , 2009, American Political Science Review.

[45]  Matthew A. Baum,et al.  Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War , 2009 .

[46]  Marc J. Hetherington Review Article: Putting Polarization in Perspective , 2009 .

[47]  Jennifer Jerit How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions , 2009 .

[48]  Cherie D. Maestas,et al.  Meaningful Participation and the Evolution of the Reformed Presidential Nominating System , 2009, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[49]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Treatment Spillover Effects across Survey Experiments , 2009, Political Analysis.

[50]  Marc J. Hetherington,et al.  Putting Polarization in Perspective , 2009 .

[51]  A. Gerber Partisanship and Economic Behavior: , 2009 .

[52]  Toby Bolsen,et al.  The Polls—Trends Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974–2006 , 2008 .

[53]  Kevin Arceneaux Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability? , 2008 .

[54]  M. Fiorina,et al.  Political Polarization in the American Public , 2008 .

[55]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[56]  Brian J. Gaines,et al.  Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq , 2007, The Journal of Politics.

[57]  James N. Druckman,et al.  A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments , 2007 .

[58]  James N. Druckman,et al.  F RAMING T HEORY , 2007 .

[59]  George Y. Bizer,et al.  Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes , 2006 .

[60]  Toby Bolsen,et al.  Public Opinion on Energy Policy, 1974-2006 , 2006 .

[61]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs , 2006 .

[62]  P. Whiteley Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[63]  Julie M. Duck,et al.  The Importance of the Relevance of the Issue to the Group in Voting Intentions: The Case of the Australian Republic Referendum , 2005 .

[64]  P. Sniderman,et al.  CHAPTER 5: The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing , 2004 .

[65]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[66]  P. Converse The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics , 2004 .

[67]  Willem E. Saris,et al.  Studies in public opinion : attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change , 2004 .

[68]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence , 2003 .

[69]  David P. Redlawsk Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making , 2002, The Journal of Politics.

[70]  Larry M. Bartels Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions , 2002 .

[71]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence , 2001 .

[72]  Paul R. Brewer,et al.  Value Words and Lizard Brains: Do Citizens Deliberate About Appeals to Their Core Values? , 2001 .

[73]  Philip E. Converse,et al.  ASSESSING THE CAPACITY OF MASS ELECTORATES , 2000 .

[74]  J. Bohman,et al.  Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy , 1998 .

[75]  H. Clarke,et al.  THE DECLINE OF PARTIES IN THE MINDS OF CITIZENS , 1998 .

[76]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Instrumental Bias in Motivated Reasoning: More When More Is Needed , 1997 .

[77]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[78]  A. Lupia Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections , 1994, American Political Science Review.

[79]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[80]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[81]  J. Zaller,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1992 .

[82]  David B. Magleby,et al.  The Myth of the Independent Voter , 1992 .

[83]  Nick Thornely Winning With Words , 1992 .

[84]  Richard A. Brody,et al.  Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology , 1991 .

[85]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[86]  Leila T. Worth,et al.  Processing of persuasive in-group messages. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[87]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  Biased Processing as a Function of Attitude Accessibility: Making Objective Judgments Subjectively , 1989 .

[88]  D. Véronique,et al.  Survey Article , 1986, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[89]  H. Himmelweit How Voters Decide , 1984 .

[90]  Jane J. Mansbridge Beyond Adversary Democracy , 1980 .

[91]  Samuel J. Eldersveld,et al.  Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System , 1951 .

[92]  J. Hayden Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association , 1928, American Political Science Review.

[93]  Max Aitken Baron Beaverbrook Politicians and the press , 1925 .

[94]  Jstor,et al.  The American political science review , 1906 .