(iPoster) Relationship between Electoral Investment and Affective Polarization

• In Event: Poster Session: Elections, Campaigns and Voting Behavior & International Perspectives on Networks and Political Engagement
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Elections, Campaigns and Voting Behavior

Abstract

Affective polarization, or the relative animosity toward the out-party, is a major concern that numerous scholars have addressed. If one evaluates the goals of a party as winning an election and that the only way to win an election is through voting, the vast majority of these strategies that have attempted to ameliorate affective polarization have focused on the relationship between non-instrumental perceptions and affective polarization as opposed to instrumental perceptions and affective polarization. Instrumental perceptions are those that aid in one’s group winning a competition, like the belief that one should vote. On the other hand, non-instrumental perceptions are those that do not aid in one’s group winning a competition, such as suggesting Republicans and Democrats are not as divided as they may appear to be.

Examining this relationship is particularly interesting, given the desire to reduce affective polarization paired with the desire to encourage greater voter turnout. Not only have academics attempted to ameliorate affective polarization numerous times, but there have also been calls from political elites to lower the political temperature in favor of more inter-party unity. Voting, on the other hand, is encouraged as a moral good with multiple organizations promoting voting. Understanding the relationship between these desirable (more voting) and undesirable (affective polarization) outcomes is valuable because it may add more depth to these variables and encourage exploration into how individuals/groups can increase what is considered desirable (more voting) without increasing what is considered undesirable (affective polarization). It is also valuable because it can reduce what is considered undesirable (affective polarization) without reducing what is considered desirable (more voting). Examining the relationship that election outcome importance and perceived voter efficacy have with affective polarization is theoretically interesting through the lens of Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory posits that individuals create in and out-groups and attempt to create positive distinction between the in and out-groups, wherein one may evaluate the in-group more positively or evaluate the out-group more negatively, to positively impact one’s self-esteem. Factors that may encourage one to engage in positive distinction include objective conflict, a conflict that has norms and rules like an election, and the salience of a conflict. Believing the election outcome is important and that one has the ability to contribute toward their party winning through voting may make one’s identity as a Republican or Democrat more salient as an active part of a group that is attempting to defeat the out-group in what they consider to be an important competition, thus increasing animosity toward the out-party.

The American National Election Study 2016-2020 panel survey was utilized to allow for the comparison of the same n = 2,839 participants across time. Affective polarization was calculated by taking the absolute value between the feeling thermometers toward the Republican and Democratic parties. The study found that, in 2020, greater election outcome importance had a positive main effect on affective polarization (p = .04) and that perceived voter efficacy had no main effect on affective polarization. There was a significant positive interaction effect between election outcome importance and perceived voter efficacy on affective polarization (p < .01). In 2016, there was no significant main effect of election outcome importance or perceived voter efficacy on affective polarization. However, there was a significant positive interaction effect between election outcome importance and perceived voter efficacy on affective polarization (p < .01). As theorized, greater election outcome importance and perceived voter efficacy consistently interact to increase affective polarization. However, the main effect of election outcome importance, which was theorized to exacerbate affective polarization, does not appear to consistently do so.

The interaction effect changes based on whether one’s party won the presidential election or not. For the losing party, higher perceived vote efficacy relates to more affective polarization when election outcome importance is higher, while the relationship reverses when election outcome importance is lower. For the winning party, higher perceived vote efficacy always corresponds to more affective polarization, regardless of whether election outcome importance is higher or lower. These patterns based on winning party are consistent across the 2016 and 2020 ANES panel data, as well as the 2012 ANES cross-sectional data.

These novel findings advance Social Identity Theory through the understanding of the relationship between instrumental election attitudes and party animosity. The panel design isolates insight into how these relationships change based on which party wins the election.

Author

• Leonard Ali Wako Memon, The University of Texas at Austin