Cited by 269Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Influence and PoliticsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Partisan Elites as Culprits? How Party Cues Shape Partisan Perceptual Gaps

Bisgaard, Martin, Slothuus, Rune·2018·American Journal of Political Science

Abstract

Partisanship often colors how citizens perceive real‐world conditions. For example, an oft‐documented finding is that citizens tend to view the state of the national economy more positively if their party holds office. These partisan perceptual gaps are usually taken as a result of citizens' own motivated reasoning to defend their party identity. However, little is known about the extent to which perceptual gaps are shaped by one of the most important forces in politics: partisan elites. With two studies focusing on perceptions of the economy—a quasi‐experimental panel study and a randomized experiment—we show how partisan perceptual differences are substantially affected by messages coming from party elites. These findings imply that partisan elites are more influential on, and more responsible for, partisan perceptual differences than previous studies have revealed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajps.12349

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Partisan divides over politically-relevant facts exist on topics ranging from economic performance to health care policy.

    “A number of studies find that partisans disagree about politically-relevant facts on topics ranging from the performance of the economy (e.g., Bartels, 2002;Scha↵ner and Roche, 2017;Bisgaard and Slothuus, 2018) to the details of health care policy (e.g., Berinsky, 2017;Nyhan, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bisgaard, M., & Slothuus, R.
Affiliations
Aarhus University (DK)
Venue
American Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-25
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
456-469
ISSN
  • 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5907
OpenAlex
W2793769902
Cited by
269
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
81.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Det Frie Forskningsråd (11‐104605, DFF‐4003‐00192B)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
party cues, economic perceptions, motivated reasoning, partisan identity, public opinion

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