The Cognitive Utility of Partisanship

Gant, Michael M.; Luttbeg, Norman R.

doi:10.2307/448387

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Partisans also appear to use special cognitive information‐processing mechanisms when making voting decisions (Lodge & Hamill, 1986); could such unique cognitive strategies lead partisans to act in a peculiar manner in other social situations? In addition, previous work fails to find statistically significant differences between partisans and nonpartisans when it comes to issue voting (Gant & Luttbeg, 1987); such results suggest that the instrumental value of partisanship is not just brand labelling or assistance in deciding which political candidate to choose.…”

Section: Partisanship and Strong Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Partisanship remains one of the most studied subjects in political science. From the early days of The American Voter (Campbell et al., 1960) until the present, scholars have studied the origin (Brader & Tucker, 2001; Converse, 1969; Cassel, 1993) and prevalence (Aldrich, 1995; Bartels, 2000) of partisanship, not to mention its dynamic (Fiorina, 1981; Franklin, 1984; Franklin & Jackson, 1983), cognitive (Gant & Luttbeg, 1987; Lodge & Hamill, 1986), and psychological (Greene, 1999) aspects. In this study, we contribute to this literature by looking into another—previously unexamined—“facet” of partisanship: partisan behavior in social dilemmas other than voting and elections.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Behavioral Logic of Collective Action: Partisans Cooperate and Punish More Than Nonpartisans

Smirnov¹,

Dawes

Fowler

et al. 2010

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory experiments indicate that many people willingly contribute to public goods and punish free riders at a personal cost. We hypothesize that these individuals, called strong reciprocators, allow political parties to overcome collective action problems, thereby allowing those organizations to compete for scarce resources and to produce public goods for like-minded individuals. Using a series of laboratory games, we examine whether partisans contribute to public goods and punish free riders at a greater rate than nonpartisans. The results show that partisans are more likely than nonpartisans to contribute to public goods and to engage in costly punishment. Given the broad theoretical literature on altruistic punishment and group selection as well as our own formal evolutionary model, we hypothesize that it is being a partisan that makes an individual more likely to be a strong reciprocator and not vice versa.

show abstract

Section: Partisanship and Strong Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Behavioral Logic of Collective Action: Partisans Cooperate and Punish More Than Nonpartisans

Smirnov¹,

Dawes

Fowler

et al. 2010

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, partisanship is associated with reduced decision difficulty. It provides a mental shortcut for making voting decisions: by merely looking at candidates' party affiliations, partisan voters get information about the alignment of the candidates' program with their values and interests (Bullock, 2011; Gant & Luttbeg, 1987; Lau & Redlawsk, 2001; Mérola & Hitt, 2015; Rahn, 1993). Additionally, partisan labels make the candidates more discriminable in the eyes of the public (Heit & Rubinstein, 1994; Mogilner, Rudnick, & Iyengar, 2008; Sloutsky, 2003).…”

Section: Partisanship and Voting Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to mobilizing voters, partisanship can potentially improve voters' decisions because candidates' party affiliations carry information about their positions on policy issues (Gant & Luttbeg, 1987; Lau & Redlawsk, 2001; Mérola & Hitt, 2015; Rahn, 1993). When it comes to making decisions in the voting booth, voters may no longer recall each candidate's policy stances.…”

Section: Partisanship and Voting Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A focus on partisanship: How it impacts voting behaviors and political attitudes

Krishna

Соколова

2017

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The target article by John Jost (2017 – this issue) focuses on political ideology (liberalism vs. conservatism) and its association with personal characteristics, cognitive processing style, and motivational interests. Jost's arguments and data are very compelling and will inspire consumer psychologists to do more research in the political domain. To enable this goal further, we complement the target article by focusing on partisanship, another major determinant of political judgments and decisions. Whereas political ideology refers to people being more liberal or conservative, partisanship refers to how strongly people identify with a specific political party (e.g., Republicans or Democrats). In reviewing the literature on partisanship, we concentrate on voting behaviors and attitudes, an area not addressed by Jost, but of great importance for consumer psychologists given the large expenditures on political advertising. Adding to Jost's discussion of the link between political ideology and systematic processing, we examine the interplay between these two constructs and partisanship.

show abstract

“…Another relevant topic is that of the partisan-nonpartisan dichotomy. Multiple studies have conducted research on the effects of partisan rhetoric; however, they have largely focused on how partisanship affects voters (Gant & Luttbeg, 1987) and if the news has a partisan slant (Morris & Francia, 2010). Panagopoulos (2008) studied the effect partisan versus nonpartisan rhetoric had on voter turnout and found that there was no significant difference between the two as a whole; however, he did find a difference between Democrats and Republicans.…”

Section: Political Public Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fight is Still On: An Ethical Analysis of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Partisan Rhetoric in the Trump Era

Gerber¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to explore this phenomenon, this thesis analyzed the ACLU's rhetoric between Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump (both Republicans) and between Presidents Barack Obama (Democrat) and Donald Trump (Republican) to see if their rhetoric changed according to the president's political party affiliation. This study utilized qualitative content analysis to not only count the number of times the president was mentioned negatively but to also analyze the meaning behind their rhetoric.While the ACLU prides itself on being nonpartisan, it was found that the organization has been tougher on Republican administrations in the past two decades both in how often they use negative rhetoric toward a president and their aggressive diction. The election of President Donald Trump, however, has provided a stark example of the organization's change in rhetoric toward presidents over time. The ACLU has both drastically increased the how often they talk about the president and how often they use negative rhetoric against him. This thesis then explored the ethics behind their decision to pursue an aggressive, arguably partisan campaign against the President, taking into account how this affects the ACLU's stakeholders. These groups include their donors/dues-paying members, those they represent in court, the American public and the U.S. government. This thesis contributes to the growing body of knowledge surrounding the Trump presidency and its effects on the American landscape. In particular, this study adds to our understanding of how a political, nonpartisan nonprofit changed their rhetoric toward a president whose policies go against their mission statement.

show abstract

The Cognitive Utility of Partisanship

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

The Behavioral Logic of Collective Action: Partisans Cooperate and Punish More Than Nonpartisans

The Behavioral Logic of Collective Action: Partisans Cooperate and Punish More Than Nonpartisans

A focus on partisanship: How it impacts voting behaviors and political attitudes

The Fight is Still On: An Ethical Analysis of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Partisan Rhetoric in the Trump Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About