American Political Behavior Research Articles

Vote choice in the context of lethal police violence: A research note

Do police-caused deaths predict presidential vote choice in the US? This study explores the relationship between lethal police violence and vote choice in the 2020 presidential election using individual-level data from Harvard University's Cooperative Election Study (CES), which has been linked with aggregate-level data on police killings, civilian homicide rates, and socioeconomic, political, and public health characteristics. Consistent with the issue ownership theory of voting, this study finds that voters living in areas characterized by lethal police violence are significantly more likely to vote for the Democratic Party above and beyond their individual-level attributes and other contextual conditions. These findings and supplemental analyses raise critical questions concerning the political salience of fatal force in presidential races in the post-2020 era. Findings also support the need for further criminological inquiry into the effects of different forms of violence on American political behavior.

The secular voter: Secularism and political attitudes in the United States

AbstractAs America grows more secular, secularism is increasingly relevant for American political attitudes and behavior. In this article, we contend that secularism—conceptualized as the affirmative embrace of secular belief and identity—is distinct from nonreligiosity, which is simply the absence of religion. We also argue that, at present, secularism is primarily a psychological, and not a social, orientation. Secular belonging and behavior are quite rare and generally unimportant politically, but secular belief and identity are far more prevalent and politically relevant. We examine the relationships that secular belief and identity, secular behavior, and nonreligiosity have with political orientations. Secular belief and identity have a much stronger and more consistent political connection than do secular behavior or nonreligiosity. Then, operationalizing secularism simply as secular belief and identity, we assess its connection to contemporary conspiracy beliefs and to support for democratic values. We find that secularists disavow most conspiracy theories and support the core democratic values of participatory democracy, freedom of expression, and political tolerance. Secularism's connection to political tolerance and support for freedom of expression is quite interesting because it is very different from those of liberal ideology and Democratic partisanship.

Partisan schadenfreude and candidate cruelty

AbstractWe establish the prevalence of partisan schadenfreude—that is, taking “joy in the suffering” of partisan others. Analyzing attitudes on health care, taxation, climate change, and the coronavirus pandemic, we find that a sizable portion of the American mass public engages in partisan schadenfreude and that these attitudes are most expressed by those who are ideologically extreme. Additionally, we find that a sizable portion of the American public is more likely than not to vote for candidates who promise to pass policies that “disproportionately harm” supporters of the opposing political party, and we demonstrate experimental evidence of demand/preference for candidates who promise cruelty among those who exhibit high amounts of schadenfreude. In sum, our results suggest that partisan schadenfreude is widespread and has disturbing implications for American political behavior.

An untapped coalition: partisanship and political participation among people with disabilities

ABSTRACT The disability politics literature has found that having a disability significantly decreases an individual’s voting propensity. Using data from the 2020 American National Election Study, the present paper explores several mechanisms driving such depressed levels of voter turnout. Considering the central role of partisanship in American political behavior, we investigate the partisan ties, ideological preferences, and vote choice of individuals reporting a disability. We also consider their overall experiences with the political system, with particular emphasis on political knowledge, political interest, and attitudes towards voting. Data suggest that those reporting a disability do not differ significantly from those not reporting a disability in terms of party affiliation, ideological orientation, and vote choice. Although individuals with disabilities exhibited high levels of political interest in 2020, they were no more or less likely to participate in alternative forms of political engagement, such as activism online. One noteworthy finding demonstrated in our analyses is that those with disabilities largely tend to view voting as a choice, rather than a duty. Our conclusion places these findings into the context of partisan coalition building and voter mobilization, providing several suggestions for how disability scholars might continue to advance understanding of this large, growing voting bloc.

A tug of war: how voters balance ideology and ethnocentrism

ABSTRACT Recent literature has documented the increasing effect ethnocentrism exerts on American political behavior. In most cases, ideology and ethnocentrism point voters in the same direction, but what happens when ideology suggests one candidate and ethnocentrism a different candidate? Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), we analyze the voting behavior of white Americans in recent presidential elections (1992–2016) to better understand what happens when these forces pull in opposite directions. We find that among strong ideologues, the influence of ethnocentrism is minimal. But, for those who do not conceive of themselves in strongly ideological terms, ethnocentrism is a dominant factor. We also find that, while the American public is as ethnocentric today as they were three decades ago, ethnocentrism has recently become more salient in determining vote choice. This provides evidence that the election of Barack Obama – the nation's first Black President – served as a catalyst that activated these dormant racial prejudices. This research has implications for where ethnocentric elite cues can be effective, as well as backfire, and how voters make electoral decisions when their ethnocentric attitudes diverge with their ideology.

Social Justice and Native American Political Engagement

Abstract The run-up to the 2020 election in the United States was marked by an unprecedented health pandemic and a social movement to challenge structural racism and advance social justice. Record numbers of Americans risked their health by protesting and voting in 2020. We analyze the relationship between a desire to advance social justice and Native American political behavior and political accountability utilizing data from the 2020 American Election Eve Survey’s large sample of Native American voters. We find that in 2020, both perceptions of racial discrimination and the COVID-19 health pandemic had a significant effect on Native American mobilization and political accountability. We also advance the limited research on the Native American electorate by finding that living on or very near tribal lands is a consequential factor for Native American political behavior and their pursuits for justice through political participation.

What Do You Mean by “Democrat” and “Republican”? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment

Abstract To better understand the nature of American mass party identification, it is crucial to examine how voters understand terms used in measuring partisanship in public opinion surveys, such as “Democrat” and “Republican.” For this purpose, we conducted a conjoint experiment where respondents evaluated hypothetical profiles’ partisanship. We show that, in contrast to previous studies which rely on one theoretical perspective to understand mass partisanship, multiple theories are reflected in how voters understand labels representing their partisanship. Further, the results suggest that many Americans seem to equate party identification with vote choice, contrary to standard assumptions in American political behavior research that these are separate concepts.

Secularism and American Political Behavior

Abstract The recent growth of the secular population in the United States has implications for American politics. However, our understanding of these implications has been hindered by oversimplified concepts and measures that equate secularism with non-religion. We separate the two concepts, distinguishing “non-religiosity,” or the absence of religion, from “secularism,” or a positive embrace of secular beliefs and identities. Using original national-sample cross-sectional and panel surveys, we introduce new measures of secularism, evaluate their properties, and assess their connection to political attitudes and behavior. We find a clear distinction between secularism and non-religiosity in the American public and show that secularism is more closely related than non-religiosity to political attitudes, identifications, and engagement. In fact, while secularism is related to changes over time in political orientations, non-religiosity is not.

How Do Campaigns Matter? Independents, Political Information, and the Enlightening Role of Campaigns in Mexico

Abstract Based on the Mexican case, this study finds that voters who report low levels of campaign information are more likely to update their vote intention as election day gets closer. Moreover, in contrast to previous studies which argue that political campaigns mainly persuade voters to support candidates against their precampaign dispositions, this article shows that, by the end of the campaign, most voters support the candidate best aligned with their underlying political predispositions—partisanship and presidential approval. In other words, voters become enlightened. This effect is particularly important among independents, a portion of the electorate understudied by the literature on Latin American political behavior.

Place, candidate roots, and voter preferences in an age of partisan polarization: Observational and experimental evidence

Throughout the mid-twentieth century, scholars identified considerable contextual variation in American electoral politics. Party platforms varied significantly across the country, split ticket voting was commonplace, and candidate idiosyncrasies appeared to matter a great deal to voters. According to previous research, candidates' roots seemed especially important to voters, with “homegrown” candidates enjoying a boost at the polls. There is good reason to expect, however, that voters may no longer care about candidate roots. Partisan politics have polarized, both ideologically amongst elites and “affectively” amongst the electorate, continually since the mid-1990s (Mason, 2018). In addition, recent work suggests that American political behavior has “nationalized; ” meaning that national level partisan cues dominate voters' decision calculus, from presidential to mayoral races (Hopkins 2018). Both trends suggest little to no role for apolitical candidate characteristics to factor into voters' evaluations of candidates. To reassess voters’ appetite for homegrown candidates, this paper features observational and conjoint experimental studies designed to discern whether individuals in the United States still care about candidate roots. Results indicate that, despite trends of partisan polarization and nationalization, voters continue to consider candidate roots important. Furthermore, this preference appears especially strong among those with a strong place identity, suggesting that those for whom geographical identity is most important are particularly sensitive to geographical cues.

The Continuing Dilemma of Race and Class in the Study of American Political Behavior

This article traces the development of the study of race and class in American political behavior. It starts by challenging the American exceptionalism thesis, particularly its premises regarding the diminutive role of social class and the absence of serious discussions about race. It then critically reviews the conventional scholarship on American political behavior and its reliance on objective indicators of social class as predictors of political preferences and participation. The article also highlights studies that have conceived of class as an important social identity and have thus measured it subjectively. It then discusses the surge of identity studies in the field of race, ethnicity, and politics (REP) and the turn toward an intersectional approach that rarely includes social class. The article ends with a discussion of the handful of studies that do consider the intersections of race and class, and underscores the need for more research of this type to advance our understanding of contemporary American political behavior.

The Urban–Rural Gulf in American Political Behavior

Urban–rural differences in partisan political loyalty are as familiar in the United States as they are in other countries. In this paper, we examine Gallup survey data from the early-2000s through 2018 to understand the urban–rural fissure that has been so noticeable in recent elections. We consider the potential mechanisms of an urban–rural political divide. We suggest that urban and rural dwellers oppose each other because they reside in far apart locations without much interaction and support different political parties because population size structures opinion quite differently in small towns compared with large cities. In particular, we consider the extent to which the compositional characteristics (i.e., race, income, education, etc.) of the individuals living in these locales drives the divide. We find that sizable urban–rural differences persist even after accounting for an array of individual-level characteristics that typically distinguish them.

Black Votes Count, But Do They Matter? Symbolic Empowerment and the Jackson-Obama Mobilizing Effect on Gender and Age Cohorts

Using data from the 1984–1988 National Black Election Studies as well as the 2008 and 2012 American National Election Studies, we provide a comprehensive study of African American political behavior with support for Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson serving as explanatory variables alongside other sources of variation—gender and age cohorts. Results show that African American voters who preferred Jackson and Obama in the 1984 and 2008 Democratic nominating contests were more likely to proselytize, attend a campaign rally or political meeting, donate money, and wear a campaign button. While opposition to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, church membership, involvement in Black political organizations were also linked to behavior, racial group identification (linked fate) had a less consistent effect. Both Obama’s candidacy like that of Jackson’s had an empowering effect on African American women—particularly, those of the civil rights generation—as was the case for Obama supporters of a younger cohort.

Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 US Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior

AbstractWe examine which Americans were likely to believe that American society has grown “too soft and feminine,” a concept we have characterized as gendered nationalism, and how such gendered nationalist attitudes influenced voting behavior in the 2016 presidential race. Our analysis shows that party, gender, education, and class shaped attitudes about gendered nationalism: Republicans, men, and members of the working class were more likely to support gendered nationalist views. We identify a strong, significant relationship between gendered nationalist attitudes and the probability of voting for Donald Trump, even after controlling for partisanship, ideology, race, religion, and other factors. Moreover, gender differences in candidate support were largely driven by gender differences in beliefs that the United States has grown too soft and feminine. Our research adds to the growing scholarly evidence indicating that gendered beliefs are likely to have a bigger impact on American political behavior than a voter's gender alone.

Introduction to Dialogues: linked fate and the politics of groups and identities

ABSTRACTThis article provides an introduction to the collection of short articles in recognition of the 25th anniversary of political scientist Michael C. Dawson's pioneering book, Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics (Princeton 1994). Each article in this special Dialogues section uses data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) to help us understand the ways in which linked fate continues to be instrumental to the discipline of political science and the social sciences more broadly, as well as its limitations to our understanding of group identity in American political behavior and public opinion. This introduction also offers a brief overview of the articles included in this special PGI Dialogues section.

The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized

The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized

The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized, by Daniel J. Hopkins

The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized, by Daniel J. Hopkins

The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. By Daniel J. Hopkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. 336p. $105.00 cloth, $35.00 paper.

The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. By Daniel J. Hopkins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. 336p. $105.00 cloth, $35.00 paper.

Response to Thomas K. Ogorzalek’s review of The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized

Response to Thomas K. Ogorzalek’s review of <i>The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized</i>

The social roots of Asian American partisan attitudes

ABSTRACTAn important question in the study of Asian American political behavior is why members of this group, who have some Republican predispositions, are strong Democratic supporters. How do Asian Americans develop preferences for the Democratic Party? This paper considers this question through a theory-building case study of political socialization in Houston, Texas, a mixed-partisan area where many Asian Americans support Democrats. Using qualitative interviews and supplemental survey data, I examine voting behavior and partisan identification, developing a socially based explanation for high levels of Democratic support. I argue that Asian Americans develop Democratic preferences through interactions within peer groups. These peer groups vary in composition by generational status, leading to different reasons for Democratic support across generations. I find that first-generation Asian Americans primarily interact with fellow Asian immigrants. Relative to their children’s generation, they develop positive attitudes about conservative ideology but vote for Democrats because they perceive contemporary Republicans as ideologically extreme. In contrast, transitional-generation and second-generation Asian Americans have racially diverse peer groups. Rarely discussing politics at home, they develop pro-Democratic attitudes through interactions with liberal friends in educational settings.