Alternative Markov Models for Describing Change in Party Identification

The Individual-Level Dynamics of Bounded Partisanship

“…Markov models are not newcomers to political science: "In fact, the Columbia group was the first to adumbrate a Markov-process model of partisan transmission. Markov models resurfaced in Converse (1964) and Dobson and Meeter (1974), but these forays did not have much impact on conceptualization in the field" (Johnston 2006: 330).…”

The Dynamics of Party Identification Reconsidered

“…13. A pioneering analysis using Markov models to study instability in party identification is Dobson and Meeter (1974). 14. Erikson, MacKuen and Stimson (2002:131-32) theorize that the observed dynamics in macropartisanship result from aggregating individuals, each of whom mixes two types of over-time change in partisanship.…”

The Stability of Political Preferences: Comparisons of Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Attitudes

“…Many of the observed associations between these two types of attitudes could be spurious, resulting from common causes that were omitted from the estimated regression models, such as voting behavior in recent elections (Meier 1975), voting intentions for an upcoming election (Allsop and Weisberg 1988), retrospective evaluations of party performance (Fiorina 1981;Kinder and Kiewiet 1981), or marriage (Beck and Jennings 1975). Or the associations could reflect the impact of nonsymbolic attitudes on symbolic ones (e.g., Alt 1984;Brody 1977;Cain 1978;Clarke and Stewart 1984;Fiorina 1981;Franklin 1984;Franklin and Jackson 1983;Goldberg 1969;Jackson 1975aJackson , 1975bLockerbie 1989;Luskin, McIver, and Carmines 1989;Markus 1979;Whiteley 1988; see also Campbell et al 1960, 133-35, 165;Dobson and Meeter 1974;Dobson and St. Angelo 1975; though see Green and Palmquist 1990). Therefore, it seems best to conclude that no studies have yet demonstrated that symbolic attitudes shape newly formed attitudes, whereas nonsymbolic attitudes do not.…”

“…Specifically, a number of studies have shown that citizens often adjust their party identification, and that these adjustments are guided by citizens' policy attitudes and their views of ongoing political events (e.g., Alt 1984;Brody 1977;Cain 1978;Clarke and Stewart 1984;Fiorina 1981;Franklin 1984;Franklin and Jackson 1983;Goldberg 1969;Jackson 1975aJackson , 1975bLockerbie 1989;Luskin, McIver, and Carmines 1989;Markus 1979;Whiteley 1988; see also Campbell et al 1960, 133-35, 165;Dobson and Meeter 1974;Dobson and St. Angelo 1975; though see Green and Palmquist 1990). For example, when a president implements a policy that a citizen favors, he or she is likely to identify more strongly with the president's party and less strongly with the opposing party.…”