Missing the Party: Political Categorization and Reasoning in the Absence of Party Label Cues

Abstract

This research addressed theoretical approaches in political science arguing that the American electorate is either poorly informed or dependent on party label cues, by assessing performance on political judgment tasks when party label information is missing. The research materials were created from the results of a national opinion survey held during a national election. The experiments themselves were run on nationally representative samples of adults, identified from another national electoral survey. Participants saw profiles of simulated individuals, including information about demographics and issue positions, but omitting party labels. In Experiment 1, participants successfully judged the likelihood of party membership based on the profiles. In Experiment 2, participants successfully voted based on their party interests. The results were mediated by participants' political knowledge. Conclusions are drawn with respect to theories from political science and issues in cognitive science regarding categorization and reasoning.

The Nature of Party Categories in Two‐Party and Multiparty Systems

“…As part of this larger research program, here we present collaborative research involving data collection from seven democracies featuring two‐ and multiparty systems: Australia, Canada, England, Hungary, Northern Ireland, the United States, and Scotland. As found in Heit and Nicholson (), we found that participants perceived politicians on the left and right as opposites. However, this pattern was not only found for parties on opposite sides of the ideological continuum in two‐party and multiparty systems, but here we report similar findings for parties on the same side of the ideological divide in multiparty systems.…”

“…The studies featured here advance a program of research (Heit & Nicholson, ; Nicholson, Coe, Martinsson, & Heit, ) that to now has focused on the role of party categorization in the American political system, a textbook example of a two‐party system. As part of this larger research program, here we present collaborative research involving data collection from seven democracies featuring two‐ and multiparty systems: Australia, Canada, England, Hungary, Northern Ireland, the United States, and Scotland.…”

“…Regardless of whether we refer to party stereotypes (Rahn, ), party images (Brewer & Stonecash, ), party brands (Aldrich, ; Cox & McCubbins, ), issue (Egan, ; Nicholson, ; Petrocik, ) and trait (Hayes, ) ownership, or party reputations (Goggin & Theodoridis, ; Sniderman & Stiglitz, ), the public is well‐aware of the attributes that define and differentiate party categories (Abramowitz & Saunders, ; Carsey & Layman, ; Heit & Nicholson, ; Hetherington, ; Levendusky, ). Parties are perhaps the best‐known categories inhabiting politics.…”

“…In a series of articles, Heit and Nicholson and colleagues (Heit & Nicholson, : Nicholson et al, ) apply insights from categorization research to how people perceive political parties. Applying the insight about how people maximize perceived differences between members of different categories, Heit and Nicholson () found that the more a person (e.g., Barack Obama) is perceived to be typical of one party (e.g., Democrat), the less he or she is perceived to be typical of the other party (e.g., Republican).…”

“…In sum, the Heit and Nicholson () articles demonstrated that in the United States two‐party system, voters have a highly structured and systematic representation of the Democratic and Republican parties; indeed, one party is seen as the mirror image of the other. Even when party cues are omitted, such as in a nonpartisan election, voters are able to infer party membership accurately based on demographic and issue‐based information, and vote according to the party line.…”