The Motivated Partisan: A Dual Motivations Theory of Partisan Change and Stability.

Abstract

Is party identification highly stable or regularly updated? Is party identification an impediment to democratic accountability or a helpful shortcut? Political scientists have debated the answers to these questions for fifty years. This dissertation incorporates intuition from both of the two dominant camps in this debate, arguing that partisan dynamics are shaped by competing motives. This theory is tested through a series of four original experiments and analysis of survey data from the American National Election Studies. By bringing partisans’ attitudes and party identities into conflict with one another, I am able to observe the methods that partisans use to reconcile their motives and defend their identities. By inhibiting partisans’ ability to deploy these defenses, I am able to induce party identification change among the most vulnerable partisans. Through a survey experiment, I observe how salient political evaluations can create identity pressure during surveys and how respondents go about resolving this pressure. Finally, by priming instrumental concerns versus expressive concerns, the motivational underpinnings of partisan responsiveness are clarified. Specifically, party identification change results from the desire to appear pragmatic—a norm of civic duty—and not from the drive to attain policy benefits. Implications for partisan dynamics, the responsiveness of the electorate, and our understanding of democratic accountability are discussed.