Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making
American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (e.g., Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. We extend the logic of this argument to a hypothetical race for Congress, using data from a survey experiment to determine whether a high degree of ambivalence toward one's party makes voters more responsive to a negative attack against the candidate of that party. In fact, we find little evidence that partisan ambivalence promotes a deliberative response to negative campaign ads.
Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. 1995. "American Ambivalence towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values." American Journal of Political Science. 39: 1055-1082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111669
Bartels, Larry M. 2014. "Remembering to Forget: A Note on the Duration of Campaign Advertising Effects." Political Communication. 31: 532-544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.956198
Basinger, Scott J., and Howard Lavine. 2005. "Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice." American Political Science Review. 99: 169-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051580
Brooks, Deborah Jordan, and Michael Murov. 2012. "Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups." American Politics Research. 40: 383-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X11414791
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York, NY: Wiley.
Chaiken, Shelly, Akiva Liberman, and Alice H. Eagly. 1989. "Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context." In Unintended Thought, eds. James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 212-252.
Citrin, Jack, and Samantha Luks. 2005. "Patriotic to the Core? American Ambivalence about America." In Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion, eds. Stephen C. Craig and Michael D. Martinez. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 127-147.
Craig, Stephen C., James G Kane, Michael D. Martinez, and Jason Gainous, 2005. "Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens’ Ambivalence about Gay Rights. Political Research Quarterly. 58: 5-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800101
Craig, Stephen C., James G. Kane, and Michael D. Martinez. 2002. "Sometimes You Feel like a Nut, Sometimes You Don’t: Citizens' Ambivalence about Abortion." Political Psychology. 23: 285-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00282
Davis, Nicholas T. 2015. "The Role of Indifference in Split-Ticket Voting." Political Behavior. 37: 67-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9266-9
Dowling, Conor M., and Amber Wichowsky. 2015. "Attacks without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising." American Journal of Political Science. 59: 19-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12094
Fernandes, Juliana. 2013. "Effects of Political Advertising and Message Repetition on Candidate Evaluation." Mass Communication and Society. 16: 268-291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.672615
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fiorina, Morris P., with Samuel J. Abrams and Jeremy C. Pope. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Longman.
Fowler, Erika Franklin, Michael M. Franz, and Travis N. Ridout. 2016. Political Advertising in the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Franz, Michael M., and Travis N. Ridout. 2007. "Does Political Advertising Persuade?" Political Behavior. 29: 465-491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9032-y
Fridkin, Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2004. "Do Negative Messages Work? The Impact of Negativity on Citizens' Evaluations of Candidates." American Politics Research. 32: 570-605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03260834
Fridkin, Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2011. "Variability in Citizens' Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns." American Journal of Political Science. 55: 307-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00494.x
Fridkin, Kim L., Patrick J. Kenney, and Amanda Wintersieck. 2015. "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: How Fact-Checking Influences Citizens' Reactions to Negative Advertising." Political Communication. 32: 127-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.914613
Gainous, Jason. 2008. "Who’s Ambivalent and Who’s Not? Ideology and Ambivalence about Social Welfare." American Politics Research. 36: 210-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X07312584
Geer, John G. 2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226285009.001.0001
Greene, Steven. H. 2005. "The Structure of Partisan Attitudes: Reexamining Partisan Dimensionality and Ambivalence." Political Psychology. 26: 809–822. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00445.x
Hill, Seth J., and Chris Tausanovitch. 2014. "A Disconnect in Representation? Comparison of Trends in Congressional and Public Polarization." Journal of Politics. 77: 1058-1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/682398
Huber, Gregory A., and Kevin Arceneaux. 2007. "Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising." American Journal of Political Science. 51: 957-977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00291.x
Iyengar, Shanto, and Sean J. Westwood. 2015. "Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization." American Journal of Political Science. 59: 690-707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
Johnson, April A. 2014. "Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context." Political Studies. 62: 502-521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12063
Klar, Samara, and Yanna Krupnikov. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316471050
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Donna M. Webster. 1996. "Motivated Closing of the Mind: 'Seizing' and 'Freezing.'" Psychological Review. 103: 263-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791048
Lau, Richard R., and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2009. "Negative Campaigning." Annual Review of Political Science. 12: 285-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448
Lavine, Howard. 2001. "The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence toward Presidential Candidates." American Journal of Political Science. 45: 915-929. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669332
Lavine, Howard G., Christopher D. Johnston, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2012. The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199772759.001.0001
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. "'I Disrespectfully Agree': The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization." American Journal of Political Science. 59: 128-145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12089
Mattes, Kyle, and David P. Redlawsk. 2014. The Positive Case for Negative Campaigning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226202334.001.0001
Mulligan, Kenneth. 2011. "Partisan Ambivalence, Split-Ticket Voting, and Divided Government." Political Psychology. 32: 505-530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00830.x
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2017. "The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider"; http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/ (retrieved 10/8/17).
Ridout, Travis N., and Glen R. Smith. 2008. "Free Advertising: How the Media Amplify Campaign Messages." Political Research Quarterly. 61: 598-608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908314202
Sigelman, Lee, and Mark Kugler. 2003. "Why is Research on the Effects of Negative Campaigning So Inconclusive? Understanding Citizens' Perceptions of Negativity." Journal of Politics. 65: 142-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00007
Smidt, Corwin D. 2017. "Polarization and the Decline of the American Floating Voter." American Journal of Political Science. 61: 365-381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12218
Stevens, Daniel, Barbara Allen, John Sullivan, and Eric Lawrence. 2015. "Fair’s Fair? Principles, Partisanship, and Perceptions of the Fairness of Campaign Rhetoric." British Journal of Political Science. 45: 195-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000045
Thompson, Megan, Mark P. Zanna, and Dale W. Griffin. 1995. "Let’s Not Be Indifferent about (Attitudinal) Ambivalence. In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, eds. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 361-386.
Thornton, Judd R. 2011. "Ambivalent or Indifferent? Examining the Validity of an Objective Measure of Partisan Ambivalence." Political Psychology. 32: 863-884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00841.x
Thornton, Judd R. 2014. "Getting Lost on the Way to the Party: Ambivalence, Indifference, and Defection with Evidence from Two Presidential Elections. Social Science Quarterly. 95: 184-201.
Valentino, Nicholas A., Vincent L. Hutchings, and Dmitri Williams. 2004. "The Impact of Political Advertising on Knowledge, Internet Information Seeking, and Candidate Preference." Journal of Communication. 54: 337-354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02632.x
Zaller, John, and Stanley Feldman. 1992. "A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences." American Journal of Political Science. 36: 579-616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111583
Copyright (c) 2020 Stephen C. Craig, Paulina S. Cossette, Michael D. Martinez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
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.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
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:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
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.