Cited by 118Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

Me, Myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and Political Cognition through the Lens of Implicit Identity

Theodoridis, Alexander G.·2017·The Journal of Politics

Abstract

Novel national survey data (spanning eight years), a parsimonious definition of identity, and a new Implicit Association Test are brought together to examine “implicit party identity” for the first time. This offers the most direct evidence available that voters associate themselves with their party at a visceral level, sometimes in a more or less pronounced way than they realize or report. This pre-introspection, automatic association relates strongly to voter evaluation and interpretation of the political world. Comparisons with standard explicit measures and three key outcomes (affect, differential evaluation, and motivated processing) offer insight regarding the nature, distribution, and measurement of party identification. Explicit and implicit measures largely corroborate each other in distinguishing between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents but deviate in registering partisan intensity. “Leaners” appear closer to partisans than to pure independents, and implicit identity yields a more graduated relationship than explicit party identification with outcomes of political cognition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/692738

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The difference in the D-score across the party divide was 0.50, while the corresponding difference in implicit racial bias across the racial divide was only 0.18.

    “The difference in the D-score-the operational indicator of implicit bias-across the party divide was 0.50, while the corresponding difference in implicit racial bias across the racial divide was only 0.18 (see also Theodoridis 2017 for an application of implicit measures to the study of partisanship).”

    From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Theodoridis 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Theodoridis, A. G.
Affiliations
University of California, Merced (US)
Corresponding author
Theodoridis, Alexander G.
Venue
The Journal of Politics
Published
2017-10
Volume
79
Issue
4
Pages
1253-1267
ISSN
  • 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2508
OpenAlex
W2744847785
Cited by
117
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
41.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
party identification, implicit associations, political cognition, differential evaluation, independent voters

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