The Appearance of Polarization Due to Attitude Formation in the 2004 Presidential Election

Authors

  • Dennis Plane

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2008.29.0.19-47

Abstract

Citizens were more engaged in the 2004 election than they were in 2000. This increased engagement was accompanied by attitude formation. Specifically, fewer citizens gave don’t know responses. In addition, fewer citizens gave midpoint responses on attitudinal scales; such responses are often a refuge for those lacking meaningful attitudes. Furthermore, attitude formation was accompanied by increased attitude extremitization. We find that this extremitization occurred for both partisans and for independents. More noticeable differences in extremitization occurred as a function of political engagement, with more engaged citizens exhibiting greater extremitization than their lesser-involved counterparts.

References

Abramowitz, Alan, and Kyle L. Saunders. 2005. Why Can.t We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America. The Forum 3. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss2/art1, accessed July 29, 2005.

Bizer, George Y., Zakary L. Tormala, Derek D. Rucker, and Richard E. Petty. 2006. Memory-Based Versus On-Line Processing: Implications for Attitude Strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(9):646.653.

Debate History. 2004. Commission on Presidential Debates. http://www.debates.org/ pages/history.html, accessed July 15, 2005.

Converse, Philip E. 1995. Foreword. In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah: Erlbaum, xi-xviii.

Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Pp. 206-261 in Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter. London: Free Press of Glencoe.

DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. 1996. Have Americans. Social Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102(11):690-755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230995

Dawson, Richard E., and Kenneth Prewitt. 1969. Political Socialization. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.

Downing, Jason W., Charles M. Judd, and Markus Brauer. 1992. Effects of Repeated Attitude Expressions on Response Extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(7):17-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.17

Erikson, Robert S., and Kent L. Tedin. 2006. American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Impact, Content, and Impact, 7th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.

Evans, John H. 2003. Have American Attitudes Become More Polarized? An Update. Social Science Quarterly 84(1):71-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8401005

Fazio, Russell H. 1995. Attitudes as Object-Evaluation Associations: Determinants, Con-sequences, and Correlates of Attitude Accessibility. Pp. 247-282 in Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequence, eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. 2004. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.

Friedman, Thomas L. A Hole in the Heart. New York Times, October 28, 2004, p. A29.

Hastie, Reid, and Bernadette Park. 1986. The Relationship Between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Task is Memory-Based or On-Line. Psychological Review 93(7):258.268.

Jacobson, Gary C. 2007. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Pearson Longman.

Justice, Glen. Kerry Kept Money Coming with Internet as His ATM. New York Times, November 6, 2004, p. A12.

Klinkner, Phillip A., and Ann Hapanowicz. 2005. Red and Blue Déjà Vu: Measuring Political Polarization in the 2004 Election. The Forum, 3. http://www.bepress.com/ forum/vol3/iss2/art2, accessed July 29, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1079

Krosnick, Jon A. 1991. Response Strategies of Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(5):213-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

Lavine, Howard, Eugene Borgida, and John L. Sullivan. 2000. On the Relationship Between Attitude Involvement and Attitude Accessibility: Toward a Cognitive-Motivational Model of Political Information Processing. Political Psychology 21(3):81-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00178

Layman, Geoffrey C., and Thomas M. Casey. 2002. Party Polarization and .Conflict Extension. in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46(10):786-802. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088434

Liu, James H., and Bibbe Latané. 1998. Extremitization of Attitudes: Does Thought- and Discussion-induced Polarization Cumulate? Basic and Applied Social Psychology 20(2):103-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2002_2

Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw, and Patrick Stroh. 1989. An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 83(6):399-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962397

Lodge, Milton, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 1995. The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 89(6):309-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082427

Mackie, Diane M. 1986. Social Identification Effects in Group Polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(7):720-728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.720

McDonald, Michael P. 2004. Up, Up and Away! Voter Participation in the 2004 Presidential Election. The Forum, 2. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art4, accessed July 29, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1058

McNemar, Quinn. 1947. Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Cor-related Proportions or Percentages. Psychometrika 12(2):153-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02295996

Miller, Murray G., and Abraham Tesser. 1986. Thought-Induced Attitude Change: The Effects of Schema Structure and Commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(8):259-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.259

Mouw, Ted, and Michael E. Sobel. 2001. Culture Wars and Opinion Polarization: The Case of Abortion. American Journal of Sociology 106(1):913-943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/320294

Patterson, Thomas. 2004. First Time Voters Propelled to Polls by Personal Contact: Non-Voters Discouraged by Election Procedures. http://www.vanishingvoter.org/ Releases/release111104.shtml, accessed August 5, 2005.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3? ReportID=196, accessed August 5, 2005.

Rahn, Wendy M., Jon A. Krosnick, and Marijke Breuning. 1994. Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation. American Journal of Political Science 38(8):582-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111598

Sears, David O. 1975. Political Socialization. Pp. 127-153 in Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 2: Micropolitical Theory, eds. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Silver, Brian D., Barbara A. Anderson, and Paul R. Abramson. 1986. Who Overreports Voting? American Political Science Review 80(6):613-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958277

Simon, James, and Bruce D. Merrill. 1998. Political Socialization in the Classroom Re-visited: The Kids Voting Program. Social Science Journal 24(6):29.42.

Sunstein, Cass R. 2003. The Law of Group Polarization. Pp. 80-101 in Debating Deliberative Democracy, eds. James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470690734.ch4

Tesser, Abraham 1978. Self-Generated Attitude Change. Pp. 289-338 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60010-6

Tesser, Abraham, and Christopher Leone. 1977. Cognitive Schemas and Thought as Determinants of Attitude Change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(7):340-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90004-X

Tourangeau, Roger, and Kenneth Rasinski. 1988. Cognitive Processes Underlying Con-text Effects in Attitude Measurement. Psychological Bulletin 103(5):299-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299

Traugott, Michael W., and John P. Katosh. 1979. Response Validity in Surveys of Voting Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly 43(7):359.77.

Zajonc, Robert B. 1980. Feeling and Thinking. Preferences Need no Inferences. American Psychologist 35(2):151-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151

Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818691

Zaller, John R., and S. Feldman. 1992. A Simple Theory of the Survey Response. American Journal of Political Science 36(8):579-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111583

Downloads

Published

2008-04-01

Issue

Vol. 29: Spring 2008

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.