Cited by 234Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationReligion and Society InteractionsAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics

Strategic Extremism: Why Republicans and Democrats Divide on Religious Values

Glaeser, E. L., Ponzetto, G. A. M., Shapiro, J. M.·2005·The Quarterly Journal of Economics

Abstract

Party platforms differ sharply from one another, especially on issues with religious content, such as abortion or gay marriage. Given the high return to attracting the median voter, why do vote-maximizing politicians take extreme positions? In this paper we find that strategic extremism depends on an intensive margin where politicians want to induce their core constituents to vote (or make donations) and the ability to target political messages toward those core constituents. Our model predicts that the political relevance of religious issues is highest when around one-half of the voting population attends church regularly. Using data from across the world and within the United States, we indeed find a nonmonotonic relationship between religious extremism and religious attendance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/003355305775097533

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Glaeser, Ponzetto, and Shapiro (2005) formalizes the intuition that politicians deploy strategic extremism to amplify cultural identification and thereby raise turnout among core supporters.

    “Glaeser, Ponzetto, and Shapiro (2005) formalizes this intuition in a model where politicians deploy strategic extremism (e.g., inflaming wedge issues) to amplify cultural identification and thereby raise turnout among core supporters.”

    From Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure (2020) · cites this paper as Glaeser, Ponzetto, and Shapiro 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glaeser, E. L., Ponzetto, G. A. M., & Shapiro, J. M.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
1283-1330
ISSN
  • 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4650
OpenAlex
W2159251310
Cited by
234
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
FWCI
80.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
Keywords
party platforms, religious values, religious service attendance, median voter, message targeting, abortion, same-sex marriage

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