What is defined as an individuals psychological attachment to a political party

• Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  Nội dung chính Show

  • What is individual political participation?
  • What does independent mean in politics?
  • What is it called when political parties change?
  • What is the concept of political parties?

• Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 502.

• Achen, C. H. (2002). Parental socialization and rational party identification. Political Behavior, 24(2), 151–170.

• Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 370–382.

• Andreychick, M. R., & Gill, M. J. (2009). Ingroup identity moderates the impact of social explanations on intergroup attitudes: External explanations are not inherently prosocial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(12), 1632–1645.

• Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2013). The effects of need for cognition and need for affect on partisan evaluations. Political Psychology, 34(1), 23–42.

• Bankert, A. (2016). My kind of partisan: The role of party leaders in shaping partisanship. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.

• Bankert, A., Huddy, L., & Rosema, M. (2017). Measuring partisanship as a social identity in multi-party systems. Political Behavior, 39(1), 103–132.

• Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.

• Bartle, J., & Bellucci, P. (Eds.). (2009). Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes. New York: Routledge.

• Bowler, S., & Segura, G. (2011). The future is ours: Minority politics, political behavior, and the multiracial era of American politics. Los Angeles: SAGE.

• Brader, T. A., & Tucker, J. A. (2009). What’s left behind when the party’s over: survey experiments on the effects of partisan cues in Putin’s Russia. Politics & Policy, 37(4), 843–868.

• Brader, T., Tucker, J. A., & Duell, D. (2013). Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 46(11), 1485–1517.

• Brader, T., Tucker, J. A., & Therriault, A. (2013). Cross pressure scores: An individual-level measure of cumulative partisan pressures arising from social group memberships. Political Behavior, 36(1), 23–51.

• Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.

• Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.

• Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

• Carlson, E. (2016). Finding partisanship where we least expect it: Evidence of partisan bias in a new African democracy. Political Behavior, 38(1), 129–154.

• Caruana, N. J., McGregor, R. M., & Stephenson, L. B. (2015). The power of the dark side: Negative partisanship and political behaviour in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 771–789.

• Cohen, G. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.

• Combs, D. J., Powell, C. A. J., Schurtz, D. R., & Smith, R. H. (2009). Politics, schadenfreude, and ingroup identification: The sometimes happy thing about a poor economy and death. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 635–646.

• Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. (2002). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press on Demand.

• Dalton, R. J., & Weldon, S. (2007). Partisanship and party system institutionalization. Party Politics, 13(2), 179–196.

• Dancey, L., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 686–699.

• Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy (pp. 260–276). New York: Harper Collins.

• Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & van Ouwerkerk, J. P. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389.

• Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. (2012). Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243–251.

• Fernandez-Vazquez, P. (2014). And yet it moves the effect of election platforms on party policy images. Comparative Political Studies, 47(14), 1919–1944.

• Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.

• Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism and political participation. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813–827.

• Franklin, C. H., & Jackson, J. E. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science Review, 77(04), 957–973.

• Garzia, D. (2013). Changing parties, changing partisans: The personalization of partisan attachments in Western Europe. Political Psychology, 34(1), 67–89.

• Garcia-Rios, S. I., & Barreto, M. (2016). Politicized immigrant identity, Spanish language media, and political mobilization in 2012. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 78–96.

• Garry, J. (2007). Making “party identification” more versatile: Operationalising the concept for the multiparty setting. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 346–358.

• Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 697–709.

• Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 720–744.

• Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identity of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

• Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403.

• Greene, S. (2002). The social-psychological measurement of partisanship. Political Behavior, 24(3), 171–197.

• Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and political identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 138–153.

• Groenendyk, E. W., & Banks, A. J. (2014). Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology, 35(3), 359–378.

• Hagevi, M. (2015). Bloc identification in multi-party systems: The case of the Swedish two-bloc system. West European Politics, 38(1), 73–92.

• Harbridge, L., & Malhotra, N. (2011). Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in Congress: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 494–510.

• Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3) 184–200.

• Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1991). Social attraction, personal attraction, and self-categorization—A field study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 175–180.

• Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1992). Prototypicality, conformity and depersonalized attraction: A self-categorization analysis of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 41–56.

• Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(2), 159–177.

• Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30.

• Holmberg, S. (2007). Partisanship reconsidered. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 557–570). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Holmberg, S. (1994). Party identification compared across the Atlantic. In M. Kent Jennings, Thomas E. Mann, & Warren E. Miller (Eds.), Elections at home and abroad: Essays in honor of Warren E. Miller (pp. 93–121). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

• Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127–156. [Reprinted In H. Lavine (Ed.), Political Psychology. SAGE 2010.]

• Huddy, L. (2013). Translating group identity into political cohesion and commitment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. Levy (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (2d ed., pp. 737–773). New York: Oxford University Press.

• Huddy, L., & Carey, T. (2009). Group politics redux: Race and gender in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Politics and Gender, 5, 1–16.

• Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp. 202–230). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aaroe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17.

• Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Horwitz, N. (2016). Political identity convergence: On being Latino, becoming a Democrat, and getting active. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(30), 205–228.

• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

• Johnston, R. (2006). Party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 329–351.

• Kayser, M. A., & Wlezien, C. (2011). Performance pressure: Patterns of partisanship and the economic vote. European Journal of Political Research, 50(3), 365–394.

• Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E. A., & Westlye, M. C. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.

• Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704.

• Klar, S., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Independent politics. Cambridge University Press.

• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

• Lavine, H., Johnston, C., & Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. New York: Columbia University.

• Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.

• Lebo, M. J., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28(6), 719–746.

• Lewis-Beck, M. S., Nadeau, R., & Elias, A. (2008). Economics, party, and the vote: Causality issues and panel data. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 84–95.

• Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

• Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

• Lupu, N. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 49–64.

• Mackie, D. M., Thierry, D., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616.

• MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1125–1142.

• Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824.

• Malka, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative–liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23(2–3), 156–188.

• Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & Mackuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.

• Mason, L. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 351–377.

• Medeiros, M., & Noël, A. (2014). The forgotten side of partisanship: Negative party identification in four Anglo-American democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(7), 1022–1046.

• Miller, P. R., & Conover, P. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225–239.

• Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855.

• Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

• Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.

• Nordlinger, E. (1972). Conflict regulation in divided societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for International Affairs.

• Philpot, T. S., & Walton, H. (2007). One of our own: Black female candidates and the voters who support them. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 49–62.

• Powell, G. B., Jr. (1976). Political cleavage structure, cross-pressure processes, and partisanship: An empirical test of the theory. American Journal of Political Science, 1–23.

• Reese, L. A., & Brown, R. E. (1995). The effects of religious messages on racial identity and system blame among African Americans. Journal of Politics, 57, 24–43.

• Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.

• Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and American democracy. New York: Macmillan.

• Rydell, R. J., Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., Claypool, H. M., Ryan, M. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008, August 1). Arousal, processing, and risk taking: Consequences of intergroup anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1141–1152.

• Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1984). Race, gender, and opinion toward black and female presidential candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 467–475.

• Smith, H. J., Cronin, T., & Kessler, T. (2008). Anger, fear, or sadness: Faculty members’ emotional reactions to collective pay disadvantage. Political Psychology, 29(2), 221–246.

• Sniderman, P. M., & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Swain, S. D., Weathers, D., & Niedrich, R. W. (2008). Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 116–131.

• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.

• Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

• Tate, K. (1994). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Enlarged edition).

• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

• Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Groenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 156–170.

• van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535.

• Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 353–372.

• Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003, June). Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values Scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 72–91.

What is individual political participation?

What does independent mean in politics?

What is it called when political parties change?

What is the concept of political parties?