Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:11:57.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Microfoundations of Mass Polarization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Matthew S. Levendusky
Matthew S. Levendusky*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, 208 South 37th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
*
e-mail: mleven@sas.upenn.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Although there has been considerable attention to the question of how much polarization there is in the mass electorate, there has been much less attention paid to the mechanism that causes polarization. I provide evidence demonstrating the occurrence of individual-level conversion—individual Democrats and Republicans becoming more liberal and conservative. Although over the short term most of the observed changes are quite small and cannot be distinguished from measurement error, over time and many respondents, these movements aggregate to generate polarization. Small individual-level preference shifts provide an important foundation for aggregate polarization.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , Spring 2009 , pp. 162 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: Thanks to Sarah Anderson, Julia Azari, Daniel Bergan, David Brady, John Bullock, Daniel Butler, Hahrie Han, Sunshine Hillygus, Greg Huber, Bill Jacoby, John Lapinski, Laura Miller, Neil Malhotra, Jeremy Pope, Shawn Treier, the anonymous referees, and especially Simon Jackman for helpful comments. Any remaining errors are my own. The online appendix is available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 2006. Disconnected, or joined at the hip?—Comment. In Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America's polarized politics. Vol. 1, eds. Nivola, Pietro and Brady, David. Washington, DC, and Stanford, CA: Brookings Insitution Press and Hoover Institution.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan, and Saunders, Kyle. 1998. Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. The Journal of Politics 60(3): 634–52.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan, and Saunders, Kyle. 2008. Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics 70(2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John, and McKelvey, Richard. 1977. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 U.S. presidential elections. American Political Science Review 71(1): 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M., and Rodden, Jonathan. 2006. Purple America. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(2): 97–118.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 433–48.Google Scholar
Baker, Wayne. 2005. America's crisis of values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2006. What's the matter with what's the matter with Kansas? Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(2): 201–26.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry. 1985. The perils of survey research: Inter-personally incomparable responses. Political Methodology 11 (3–4): 269–90.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip, Miller, Warren, and Stokes, Donald. 1980. The American voter. Chicago: Midway Reprints, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, James. 2006. Polarization runs deep, even by yesterday's standards—Comment. In Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America's polarized politics. Vol. 1, eds. Nivola, Pietro and Brady, David. Washington, DC, and Stanford, CA: Brookings Insitution Press and Hoover Institution.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas, and Layman, Geoffrey. 2006. Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon D., and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call voting. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, Evans, John, and Bryson, Bethany. 1996. Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 690–755.Google Scholar
Evans, John. 2003. Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized? An update. Social Science Quarterly 84(1): 71–90.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven. 1995. Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, and Abrams, Samuel. 2008. Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, Samuel, and Pope, Jeremy. 2005. Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, Abrams, Samuel, and Pope, Jeremy. 2008. Polarization in the American public: Misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics 70(2): 556–60.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Shor, Boris, Bafumi, Joseph, and Park, David. 2007. Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What's the matter with Connecticut? Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2(4): 345–67.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1990. Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science 34(3): 872–902.Google Scholar
Grice, James. 2001. Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods 6(4): 430–50.Google Scholar
Harman, Harry. 1967. Modern factor anlaysis. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc. 2009. Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science 39(2): 413–448.Google Scholar
Jackman, Simon D. 2004. What do we learn from graduate admissions committees? Political Analysis 12(4): 400–24.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 2006a. Disconnected, or joined at the hip?—Comment. In Red and blue nation? Characteristics and causes of America's polarized politics. Vol. 1, eds. Nivola, Pietro and Brady, David. Washington, DC, and Stanford, CA: Brookings Insitution Press and Hoover Institution.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 2006b. A divider, Not a uniter. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William. 1990. Variability in issue alternatives and American public opinion. Journal of Politics 52(2): 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Valen, and Albert, James H. 1999. Ordinal data modeling. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, Karl. 2000. Latent variable scores and their uses. Technical report Scientific Software International http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/advancedtopics.html (accessed December 20, 2008).Google Scholar
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of Measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 98(1): 191–207.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 2002. The challenges of political psychology: Lessons to be learned from research on attitude perception. In Thinking about political psychology, ed. Kuklinksi, Jim. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, and Carsey, Thomas. 2002a. Party polarization and ‘conflict extension’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 786–802.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, and Carsey, Thomas. 2002b. Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior 24(3): 199–236.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2008. Choosing sides: The rise of liberal democrats and conservative republicans. Manuscript: University of Pennslyvania.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew, Pope, Jeremy, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. Measuring district level preferences with implications for the analysis of U.S. elections. Journal of Politics 70(3): 736–53.Google Scholar
Lewin-Koh, Sock-Cheng, and Amemiya, Yasuo. 2003. Heteroskedastic factor analysis. Biometrika 90(1): 85–97.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew, and Quinn, Kevin. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. supreme court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren. 2000. Temporal order and causal inference. Political Analysis 8(2): 119–40.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Merrill Shanks, J. 1996. The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith. 1998. Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science 42(3): 954–93.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-broadcast democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putz, David. 2002. Partisan conversion in the 1990s: Ideological realignment meets measurement theory. Journal of Politics 64(4): 1199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 2003. Identification of multidimensional spatial voting models. Manuscript: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Shafer, Byron, and Claggett, William. 1995. The two majorities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark. 2007. The right talk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stoker, Laura, and Kent Jennings, M. 2008. Of time and the development of partisan polarization. American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 619–35.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon D. 2002. Beyond factor analysis: Modern tools for social measurement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Hillygus, Sunshine. 2006. The contours of policy attitudes in the mass public. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Alan. 1999. One nation after all. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar