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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1162/003355305775097533
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Alesina Alberto, 1988, American Economic Review, 805
  2. Calmes Jackie, 2004, Wall Street Journal, (, A1
  3. Farrell Joseph, 1989, American Economic Review, 1223
  4. Gentzkow, Matthew, Edward L. Glaeser, and Claudia D. Goldin, "The Rise of the Fourth Estate: How Newspapers Became Informative and Why it Mattered," Harvard University mimeograph, 2004. · DOI
  5. Glaeser Edward L, 2004, NBER Working Paper No., 10835
  6. Inglehart Ronald, 1990, World Values Surveys and European Values Surveys, 1981, 93
  7. 2004, New York Times (, P1
  8. 1999, American Politics Quarterly, 121
  9. Sapiro, Virginia, and Steven J. Rosenstone, American National Election Studies Cumulative Data File, Vol. 8475 (Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR, 2002).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 234

Related

Metadata

Authors
Glaeser, E. L., Ponzetto, G. A. M., & Shapiro, J. M.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
120
Issue
4
Pages
1283-1330
ISSN
  • 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4650
DOI
10.1162/003355305775097533
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