IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i3p622-634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideological and partisan biases in ratings of candidate quality in U.S. House elections

Author

Listed:
  • Danielle Joesten Martin

Abstract

Objective This article explores whether voters evaluate candidates’ ideology, partisanship, and quality independently or exhibit behavior consistent with motivating reasoning, rating co‐partisans and candidates ideologically similar to themselves as more competent. Methods Using a survey of voters and experts from 2010 U.S. House elections, I estimate a model predicting an individual's rating of incumbent candidate competence for office and challenger candidate competence for office. Results Individuals ideologically distant from a candidate rate the candidate as less competent, yet rate co‐partisan candidates as more competent. For incumbents, opposing partisanship amplifies the negative effect of ideological distance on candidate quality ratings, and shared partisanship mitigates the negative effect of ideological distance. Conclusion Only incumbents rated as the most competent can overcome the ideological and partisan biases of voters. Consistent with theories of affective polarization, these results imply that polarization runs deeper than partisan or ideological differences–it is personal.

Suggested Citation

  • Danielle Joesten Martin, 2022. "Ideological and partisan biases in ratings of candidate quality in U.S. House elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 622-634, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:3:p:622-634
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13159
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13159?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maestas, Cherie D. & Buttice, Matthew K. & Stone, Walter J., 2014. "Extracting Wisdom from Experts and Small Crowds: Strategies for Improving Informant-based Measures of Political Concepts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 354-373, July.
    2. Brian F. Harrison, 2016. "Bully Partisan or Partisan Bully?: Partisanship, Elite Polarization, and U.S. Presidential Communication," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 97(2), pages 418-438, June.
    3. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, January.
    4. Burden, Barry C., 2004. "Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 211-227, April.
    5. Walter J. Stone & Elizabeth N. Simas, 2010. "Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 371-388, April.
    6. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    7. Christopher R. Ellis & Joseph Daniel Ura, 2021. "Polarization and the Decline of Economic Voting in American National Elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 83-89, January.
    8. Hetherington, Marc J., 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 619-631, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jordan Kujala, 2020. "Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 587-602, July.
    2. Michael K Miller, 2011. "Seizing the mantle of change: Modeling candidate quality as effectiveness instead of valence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 52-68, January.
    3. Christian R. Grose & Keesha M. Middlemass, 2010. "Listen to What I Say, Not How I Vote: Congressional Support for the President in Washington and at Home," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 143-167, March.
    4. Douglas D. Roscoe & Shannon Jenkins, 2021. "Amateur hour: The dominance of purposive benefits among local political party chairs," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1602-1614, July.
    5. Golman, Russell, 2023. "Acceptable discourse: Social norms of beliefs and opinions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    6. Livio Di Lonardo, 2017. "Valence uncertainty and the nature of the candidate pool in elections," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 327-350, April.
    7. Fabian Gouret, 2021. "Empirical foundation of valence using Aldrich–McKelvey scaling," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(3), pages 177-226, September.
    8. Andreottola, Giovanni, 2021. "Signaling valence in primary elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-32.
    9. Peiran Ma, 2023. "The Impact of Political Polarization on the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States: A Qualitative Study," Journal of Politics and Law, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(2), pages 1-37, May.
    10. Facciani, Matthew & Lazić, Aleksandra & Viggiano, Gracemarie & McKay, Tara, 2023. "Political network composition predicts vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    11. Petter Törnberg & Claes Andersson & Kristian Lindgren & Sven Banisch, 2021. "Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, October.
    12. Giovanni Andreottola, 2020. "Signaling Valence in Primary Elections," CSEF Working Papers 559, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    13. Borbáth, Endre & Hutter, Swen & Leininger, Arndt, 2023. "Cleavage politics, polarisation and participation in Western Europe," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 631-651.
    14. Mazen Hassan & Sarah Mansour & Stefan Voigt & May Gadallah, 2022. "When Syria was in Egypt’s land: Egyptians cooperate with Syrians, but less with each other," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 337-362, June.
    15. Hans Gersbach & Philippe Muller & Oriol Tejada, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Electoral Competition with Costly Policy Changes," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 17/270, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    16. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    17. Chonnakan Rittinon & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Suparit Suwanik & Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn, 2022. "Misunderstood Differences: Media, Perception, and Out-Group Animosity in Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, revised Sep 2024.
    18. Luca Henkel & Philipp Sprengholz & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2023. "The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(2), pages 231-239, February.
    19. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Sgroi, Daniel & Yeo, Jonathan & Zhuo, Shi, 2021. "Ingroup Bias with Multiple Identities: The Case of Religion and Attitudes Towards Government Size," IZA Discussion Papers 14714, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:3:p:622-634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.