Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
1) Alexa Bankert, and Helmut Norpoth (2013). “Guns N Jobs -The FDR Legacy.” Electoral Studies, 32(3): 551 - 556.
Abstract
The intrusion of war is likely to alter the standard economic voting calculus. A wartime economy is not expected to deliver the same political benefits or costs, in terms of presidential approval or votes in an election, as does a peacetime economy. The Roosevelt presidency presents a perfect target to examine economic voting in wartime. Using monthly polling data on presidential approval from late 1937 to 1945, we demonstrate that the American public suspended standard economic-voting logic during World War II. One explanation for this suspension is the enormous size of U.S. military spending. Using data on government spending from 1929 to 1950, we show that military spending had a huge effect on unemployment while the effect of non-military spending proves negligible and non-significant. It was military spending triggered by war, not the New Deal, that vanquished the Great Depression. (PDF)
2) Benjamin J. Newman, Yamil Velez, Todd K. Hartman, and Alexa Bankert (2015). “Are Citizens Receiving the Treatment? Assessing a Key Link in Contextual Theories of Public Opinion and Political Behavior.” Political Psychology, 36: 123-131.
Abstract
The theorization and empirical exploration of contextual effects is a long-standing feature of public opinion and political behavior research. At present, however, there is little to no evidence that citizens actually perceive the local contextual factors theorized to influence their attitudes and behaviors. In this article, we focus on two of the most prevalent contextual factors appearing in theories—racial/ethnic and economic context—to investigate whether citizens' perceptions of their local ethnic and economic contexts map onto variation in the actual ethnic composition and economic health of these environments. Using national survey data combined with Census data, and focusing on the popular topics of immigration and unemployment, we find that objective measures of the size of the immigrant population and unemployment rate in respondents' county and zip code strongly predict perceived levels of local immigration and assessments of the health of one's local job market. In addition to demonstrating that citizens are “receiving the treatment,” we show that perceptions of one's context overwhelmingly mediate the effect of these objective contextual factors on relevant economic and immigration attitudes. The results from our analyses provide scholars with unprecedented evidence that a key perceptual process presumed in various contextual theories of political attitudes and behavior is, in fact, valid. (PDF)
3) Alexa Bankert, Leonie Huddy, and Martin Rosema (2017). “Measuring Partisanship as a Social Identity in Multi-Party Systems.” Political Behavior: 1-30. (Blog article about the paper here)
Abstract
There is no doubt that partisanship is a powerful influence on democratic political behavior. But there is also a lively debate on its nature and origins: Is it largely instrumental in nature and shaped by party performance and issues stances? Or is it basically a long-standing expressive identity reinforced by motivated reasoning and strong emotion? We assess the nature of partisanship in the European context, examining the measurement properties and predictive validity of a multi-item partisan identity scale included in national surveys conducted in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.K. Using a latent variable model, we show that an eight-item partisan identity scale provides greater information about partisan intensity than a standard single-item and has the same measurement properties across the three countries. In addition, the identity scale better predicts in-party voting and political participation than a measure of ideological intensity (based on both left-right self-placement and agreement with the party on key issues), providing support for an expressive approach to partisanship in several European democracies. (PDF)
4) Reuben Kline, Alexa Bankert, Lindsey Levitan and Patrick Kraft (2017). “Introducing Multilevel Meta-Analysis to Political Science: An Application to Personality and Prosocial Behavior.” Political Science Research and Methods.
Abstract
We introduce the multilevel meta-analysis (MLMA) framework to Political Science. By leveraging individual observations from all studies and explicitly modeling the multilevel structure of the data, MLMA permits the simultaneous estimation of study and individual-level effects. MLMA also produces more efficient parameter estimates than conventional meta-analysis using fixed or random effects. To demonstrate the utility of MLMA we investigate the effect of personality on prosocial behavior using Bayesian methods. The Bayesian approach allows us to estimate study-level effects in an unbiased and efficient manner, even with a relatively small number of studies. With data from 15 studies constituting more than 2,800 individual observations, we find that the Big-5 traits of Agreeableness and Openness are significantly and positively associated with prosocial behavior, while none of the other three traits are. These results are robust to a number of different model specifications, and greatly clarify the contradictory findings in the literature on the relationship between personality and prosocial behavior. Though previous research has indicated that incentivized experiments result in reduced prosocial behavior, we find no evidence that the method of participant incentivization affects prosocial tendencies. We conclude by discussing the advantages of the MLMA method for political science more broadly. (PDF) (Appendix)
5) Kristin Garrett and Alexa Bankert (2018). “The Moral Roots of Partisan Division: How Moral Conviction Heightens Affective Polarization.” British Journal of Political Science.
Abstract
Partisan bias and hostility have increased substantially over the last few decades in the American electorate, and previous work shows that partisan strength and sort- ing help drive this trend. Drawing on insights from moral psychology, however, we posit that partisan moral convictions heighten affective polarization beyond the effects of partisanship, increasing partisan animosity and copartisan favoritism. Testing this theory using data from two national samples and novel measures of affective polariza- tion in everyday life, we find that people who tend to moralize politics display more partisan bias, distance, and hostility, irrespective of partisan strength. These results shed light on a different moral divide that separates the American public and raise key normative questions about moral conviction and electoral politics. (PDF) (Appendix)
6) Leonie Huddy, Alexa Bankert and Caitlin Davies (2018). “Expressive vs. Instrumental Partisanship in European Multi-Party Systems.” Advances in Political Psychology 39.
Abstract
Partisanship has a powerful influence on political behavior in the United States but its influence is less certain in European democracies. Part of the debate concerning the influence of partisanship in Europe centers on its nature. From one perspective, partisanship is seen as grounded in factors such as ratings of government performance and agreement with the party’s issue stances. We refer to this as the instrumental model. In the US, however, a competing model has gained empirical support in which partisanship is defined as an identity that is largely defensive in nature and not especially reactive to ongoing events. We refer to this an expressive model. In this review, we focus on several European democracies (the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, and Italy) and evaluate evidence for and against an expressive model of partisanship in which democratic citizens act to defend their party in order to maintain its positive standing. We find evidence that strong partisans in Europe exhibit five characteristics of expressive partisans: stable partisan identity, motivated reasoning in defense of the party,the greater influence of identity than issues and ideology in shaping vote choice and political behavior, affective polarization bias in favor of one’s own party, and the existence of strong defensive emotions aroused by partisan threats and reassurances. It appears that partisans in the four European democracies act in similar ways to partisans in the United States. Nonetheless, levels of partisan identification differ across the European nations and between European nations and the US helping to explain national differences in the intensity of partisan behavior. (PDF) (Appendix)
7) Julie Wronski*, Alexa Bankert*, April Johnson, Karyn Amira, and Lindsey Levitan (2018). “A Tale of Two Democrats - How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party”. The Journal of Politics 80.4 (* shared first authorship)
Abstract Authoritarianism has been predominantly used in American politics as a predictor of Republican identification and conservative policy preferences. We argue that this approach has neglected the role authoritarianism plays among Democrats and how it can operate within political parties regardless of their ideological orientation. Drawing from three distinct sets of data, we demonstrate the impact of authoritarianism in the 2016 Democratic Party’s primaries. Authoritarianism consistently predicts differences in primary voting among Democrats, particularly support for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. This effect is robust across various model specifications including controls for ideology, partisan strength, and other predispositions. These results highlight the potential of authoritarianism to shape leadership preferences within the Democratic Party. We advocate for a reconsideration of authoritarianism as a disposition with meaningful consequences for intra-party dynamics and conclude with practical implications regarding the future of the Democratic Party. (PDF)
8) Alexa Bankert (2020). “Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections” Political Behavior 1-19.
Abstract Negative partisanship captures the notion that disdain for the opposing party is not necessarily accompanied by strong in-party attachments. Yet, lack of a theoretical framework as well as measurement issues have prevented researchers from utilizing this consequential concept. I address these concerns in several ways. First, I design and examine the measurement properties of a multi-item scale that gauges negative partisan identity. Second, I demonstrate that—while most Americans display aspects of both negative and positive partisan identity—the two are distinct constructs. Third, I compare the power of both types of partisan identity in predicting attitudes towards bipartisanship, political participation, and vote choice. I thereby demonstrate the distinctive effects of negative and positive partisan identity on a range of political behaviors. The results offer a more nuanced perspective on partisanship and its role in driving affective polarization. (PDF)
9) Alexa Bankert (2020) “The Differential Effects of Gender Discrimination on Liberal and Conservative Women’s Political Engagement” American Politics Research, Vol. 48(6) 779–791. (PDF)
Abstract As the 2016 election season as well as the Me Too movement have powerfully demonstrated, sexism is a pervasive force not just in American politics but also, more generally, in women’s everyday lives. While political scientists have focused on the impact of sexism on voters’ evaluations of female candidates and their electoral chances, we know little about the effect of personally experienced sexism on American women’s political engagement. This manuscript tries to address this gap. Using data from the 2016 ANES Pilot Study as well as a survey experiment, I demonstrate that women who have experienced gender discrimination report higher levels of political participation and a higher chance of voting in the general election. However, among conservative women, personal experience with sexism is not associated with this participatory impetus. These findings have implications for the equal representation of women from both ends of the ideological spectrum. (PDF)
10) Alexa Bankert (2022): “Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity” The Forum 19 (2021), 459-480.
Abstract Scholarship on partisanship has been transformed by political scientists’ embrace of social and cognitive psychology in the past few decades. This interdisciplinary union has drastically changed the way political scientists examine the origins and effects of partisanship. In this essay, I provide a brief history of scholarship on partisanship, its transformation into a partisan identity as well as its role in the study of polarization. I then demonstrate how this identity framework has propelled research on negative partisan identity in the U.S. two-party system and European multi-party systems. I conclude with a few avenues for future research that could enrich our understanding of partisanship. (PDF)
Manuscripts Under Review
“Partisan Identity in Times of Change - A Case Study of Italian Partisanship”. With Alessandro Del Ponte and Leonie Huddy.
Abstract There is a continuing debate over the political importance and durability of partisan attachments in European multi-party systems. Drawing on a nationally representative 5-wave panel, we provide a longitudinal test of the power of partisanship in Italy over the course of the tumultuous 2013 national elections. We find that a strong partisan affiliation measured as a social identity two years prior to the election promoted system stability by increasing support for the in-party and inhibiting electoral support for the insurgent Five Star Movement (M5S). This effect was not detected by a standard measure of partisan strength. In contrast, non-partisans, especially highly educated ones, were more likely than partisans to vote for M5S. Our results illustrate the role of partisanship in stabilizing multi-party systems amid crisis.
“Ethnocentrism and Consumer Preferences” with Geoffrey Sheagley and Ryan Powers.
Abstract As international trade flourishes, Americans can choose from an increasing number of foreign products even at their local grocery stores, allowing consumers to directly experience the consequences of globalized trade in a simple and intuitive way that does not require much political expertise. Yet, most prior scholarship on political consumerism assumes that consumers are aware of the political and economic implications of their choices at the checkout lane. We move away from this assumption, focusing instead on more fundamental psychological predispositions such as ethnocentrism that may guide daily consumer choices. Using a discrete choice conjoint experiment, we show that Americans, on average, exhibit ethnocentric consumer preferences, with demand for products falling as they are produced in more culturally and ethnically distant places. Additionally, we show that this effect is more pronounced among those with higher levels of ethnocentrism. Our results provide evidence for a “naïve” form of political consumerism.
“Negative Partisanship among Independents in the U.S.”
Abstract Negative partisanship has been on the rise in American politics: While many Americans feel lukewarm about their own party, disdain toward the opposing party is steadily intensifying. Prior scholarship has examined to what extent negative partisanship can arise without any prior attachments to a particular party. Yet, most preceding work focuses on self-declared supporters of a political party who – by definition – have a positive party identification, thereby making it challenging to disentangle positive and negative partisanship. In this paper, I address this conceptual difficulty by surveying self-identified Independents shortly before the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. I show that negative partisanship among Independents predicts turnout, political engagement, strong emotional responses to the election outcome, as well as opposition to bipartisanship. These results confirm the notion that negative partisanship can influence political behavior independently of positive partisanship.
“The Psychological Origins of Positive and Negative Partisanship”
Abstract Negative partisanship (NPID) describes the intense disdain for a rival political party. A growing number of political scientists in the U.S. and beyond examine the impact of negative partisanship on citizens’ political behavior, asserting the notion that negative partisanship exerts a strong influence, either on its own or in combination with positive partisanship (PPID). Yet, we know little about the psychological origins of negative and positive partisanship: Which personality traits are associated with high levels of negative partisanship, and do they differ from the ones that have been linked to positive partisanship? In this manuscript, I address these questions. Utilizing a sample of U.S. adults and a sample of Swedish adults, I examine the influence of prominent personality traits - including Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, the Need for Closure, and the Big Five - on strong negative and positive partisanship. I demonstrate that the personality origins of PPID and NPID differ not just across the two samples but also across partisan on the Left and on the Right. I conclude the article with implications for research on polarization and a plea for more comparative work on (positive and negative) partisanship.
“Authoritarianism in the Democratic Party” with David Stack.
Abstract Recent scholarship has shown that authoritarian personality traits impact leadership preferences within the Democratic Party whereby authoritarian Democrats preferred Clinton to Sanders in the 2016 primaries. Yet, it is unclear which specific candidate traits appeal to authoritarian Democrats. We address this question at the example of the Democratic Party’s 2020 primary race. Utilizing experimental and observational analyses from two different samples, we demonstrate that authoritarian Democrats value ideological moderation and religious affiliation more than their non-authoritarian counterparts. In the 2020 Democratic primary elections, these traits aligned with Joe Biden’s profile, making him the likely choice for authoritarian Democrats.
Working Papers & Ongoing Research
Book: “When Politics Becomes Personal: The Effect of Partisan Identity on (Anti-) Democratic Behavior.” Under Advance Contract with Cambridge University Press. To be submitted by end of July.
This book serves two main purposes: First, it provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary research on partisan identity, thereby functioning as a field guide for scholars in various disciplines ranging from political science and sociology to social psychology. Second, it makes scholarship on partisanship accessible to citizens outside of academia who like to learn about the impact of unconditional party loyalties on themselves and their communities. This book is thus particularly relevant for civic organizers and policymakers who try to navigate the effects of entrenched partisan divisions in their communities and nations.
The book is divided into four parts. The first part provides a roadmap for the reader. It first connects the study of partisanship to the fundamental need for political parties in representative democracies, thereby laying the normative groundwork for the book. Subsequently, I present the reader with a quick overview of the book’s content as well as its intended audience. While the book relies on scholarly work, I intend to write it in a way that attracts both academic and non-academic readers. Finally, the introductory part explains the organization of the book: Chapters are not just categorized by distinct research concepts but also by the novelty of the research. For example, research on negative partisan identity has gained credence only recently while the concept of (positive) partisanship has attracted an abundance of research over the past 10 years. On the other hand, research on how to reconcile partisanship’s – oftentimes anti-democratic – effects with democratic norms and values is still in its infancy. From this perspective, the book progresses in a fashion that resembles the chronological development of the scholarship on partisanship.
The book’s second part compares and contrasts the socio-psychological conceptualization of partisanship (i.e. partisan identity) to its traditional, rational choice-based counterpart. For this purpose, I synthesize the existing scholarship on these subjects and highlight their different theoretical and normative implications. This review is infused with my own work on partisan identity, providing empirical support for the socio-psychological model of partisanship both in the U.S. two-party system as well as in European multi-party systems like Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, and the U.K. I focus on the U.S. and Europe for two reasons: First, there is simply more high-quality data available for these case selections. Second, the U.S. and Europe share many educational and economic indicators while varying dramatically in their electoral system. This contrast allows me to focus on the connection between a country’s electoral system and the effects of partisanship while keeping other important indicators somewhat constant.
The third part of the book introduces my recent scholarship on negative partisan identity (see Bankert 2020), including its theoretical framework, measurement, and presence in the U.S. as well as in European multi-party systems like Sweden. In contrast to prior scholarship, I introduce an identity-based multi-item scale that gauges negative partisan identity with items such as “When this party loses an election, I feel relieved” and “When I meet someone who supports this party, I feel disconnected”. Utilizing this more precise instrument, I present empirical evidence for the impact of negative partisan identity on vote choice, turnout, and various political attitudes (e.g. hostility towards the other party and bipartisanship). Importantly, this part of the book demonstrates the distinct effects of negative and positive partisan identity by examining partisans but also political independents who tend to lack any positive attachment to a political party but nevertheless can develop negative partisanship.
The fourth part of the book discusses possible ways to foster positive partisan identity without its negative counterpart. For this purpose, I draw from the social psychology literature and its research on superordinate identities (e.g. national identities) and identity complexity (i.e. the interplay of partisan identity with other important identities like gender, race, and religion). This part of the book also speculates about the future of partisanship in the U.S.
“Authoritarianism in the Classroom”
Across colleges in the U.S. and beyond, instructors oftentimes struggle with students who are reluctant to challenge their prior beliefs and attitudes, especially in times of partisan polarization. This resistance to change is antithetical to the development of critical thinking skills – a major goal of every college education. While most prior scholarship on teaching has focused on teaching strategies to enhance critical thinking skills, this manuscript examines the role of students’ predispositions. In particular, I focus on authoritarianism – a personality trait that is linked to conservatism, traditionalism, and conventionalism in people’s political preferences. As a psychological predisposition that develops long before ideology and partisanship, authoritarianism might also be relevant in college classrooms. Yet, we know little about the effect of authoritarianism on students’ learning experiences as well as their interactions with their peers and the instructor. In this article, I demonstrate that among a large sample of freshmen students, authoritarianism is a strong predictor of opposition to critical thinking assignments and interactions with peers as well as mistrust towards academic research. I also show that female instructors are especially likely to receive negative evaluations from their authoritarian students. I conclude the article with a discussion of the results’ implications as well as an outline of future research avenues.
“Reducing the Spread of Politicized Health Information.” With Mollie Cohen and Geoff Sheagley.
The study will also test the effect of an experimental intervention designed to reduce the spread of polarizing information on social media. In the experiment, participants can choose to share a message attacking their least preferred party on social media site, like Facebook. Those who say yes are randomly assigned to a control group, or to a “pause and reflect” treatment designed to promote cognitive elaboration by appealing to either 1) national identity, 2) partisan identity, 3) elite consensus, or 4) scientific expertise. Such accuracy reminders (Bolsen and Druckman 2015) and partisan appeals from a trusted source (Flynn, Nyhan, and Reifler 2017) can motivate people to scrutinize information more closely. At least in the United States, appeals to national identity can reduce affective polarization by making salient an overarching social identity (Levendusky 2018). We piloted the experiment on a diverse national U.S. sample (N=2,000) in April 2020 and found that appeals to national identity and scientific expertise significantly reduced willingness to post the message to social media: The scientist appeal reduced sharing by 18% (p< 0.001) and the American identity appeal by 12% (p=0.005), both compared to a control group that was asked respondents if they “were sure” that they wanted to share the message (without any identity appeal or accuracy reminder). We conclude that this simple, easy to implement intervention led some individuals to reassess their willingness to post a partisan message. (Preliminary Results HERE)
Pre-registration here: https://osf.io/qat4n?view_only=8abbb5e7724c4f50b65325511598a0d3