CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 348Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationAmerican Political and Social DynamicsPolitical Theory and Democracy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics

LAYMAN, GEOFFREY C., CARSEY, THOMAS M., GREEN, JOHN C., HERRERA, RICHARD, COOPERMAN, ROSALYN·2010·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.1017/s000305541000016x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Party activists have played a leading role in “conflict extension”—the polarization of the parties along multiple issue dimensions—in contemporary American politics. We argue that open nomination systems and the ambitious politicians competing within those systems encourage activists with extreme views on a variety of issue dimensions to become involved in party politics, thus motivating candidates to take noncentrist positions on a range of issues. Once that happens, continuing activists with strong partisan commitments bring their views into line with the new candidate agendas, thus extending the domain of interparty conflict. Using cross-sectional and panel surveys of national convention delegates, we find clear evidence for conflict extension among party activists, evidence tentatively suggesting a leading role for activists in partisan conflict extension more generally, and strong support for our argument about change among continuing activists. Issue conversion among activists has contributed substantially to conflict extension and party commitment has played a key role in motivating that conversion.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s000305541000016x

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Oldfield, 1996, The Right and the Righteous
  2. 10.1080/01621459.1957.10501379 · DOI
  3. Poole, 2006, Ideology and Congress: 2nd
  4. Black, 2007, Divided America
  5. 10.2307/448823 · DOI
  6. Aldrich, 2001, Congress Reconsidered, 269
  7. Miller, 1986, Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Party Supporters

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 348

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
LAYMAN, G. C., CARSEY, T. M., GREEN, J. C., HERRERA, R., & COOPERMAN, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Akron (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Mary Washington (US)
Corresponding author
  • LAYMAN, GEOFFREY C.
  • CARSEY, THOMAS M.
  • GREEN, JOHN C.
  • HERRERA, RICHARD
  • COOPERMAN, ROSALYN
ORCID
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2010-05
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
324-346
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.1017/s000305541000016x
OpenAlex
W2107628037
Cited by
348
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 14
FWCI
105.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 17 d)
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › American Political and Social Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
party activists, interparty conflict, candidate positions, party commitment, partisan polarization, American party politics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review