PARTISAN STRENGTH

Partisan strength refers to the intensity of an individual’s emotional, psychological and general attachment to a political party. It’s like a measure of political “team spirit” that influences how people think about, engage with, and make decisions in the political arena. 

Imagine a spectrum of sports fans. At one end, you have casual viewers who might watch a game every now and then. At the other end, you have die-hard supporters who never miss a match and wear team colors daily. Political partisanship works similarly. Some people have a mild preference for one party, while others view their party affiliation as a core part of their identity. 

This concept helps explain why some voters consistently support their chosen party regardless of circumstances, while others might change their vote based on specific issues or candidates. Partisan strength shapes how people interpret political events, react to news, and even how they interact with those holding different political views. 

As our understanding of political behavior has evolved, so has our approach to measuring and conceptualizing partisan strength. Initially, researchers used a simple self-report scale to gauge how strongly people generally attach to a party. However, recent scholarship has expanded this general understanding by exploring related concepts like “belonging” and “closeness.” 

“Belonging” refers to the sense of being part of a political group, similar to being part of a community or club. It’s about shared identity and values. “Closeness,” a newer concept in this field, examines the emotional connection to a party. Both belonging and closeness contribute to a general attachment to the party.  

The interplay between belonging and closeness offers a more nuanced picture of partisan strength. It helps explain complex political behaviors, such as why some people might feel strongly partisan without being politically active, or why others might feel they belong to a party while cognitively disagreeing with some of its positions. 

This evolving understanding highlights the multifaceted nature of partisanship. Partisanship is more than just what party you support, but the strength of this support, whether this support is affectively or cognitively motivated. As affective polarization and populism intensifies globally, the study of partisan strength becomes increasingly relevant. It offers insights into why multi-partisan and bi-partisan conversations have become more challenging and how strong partisan attachments influence not just political views, but also social relationships and daily interactions. 

Understanding these nuances can help with developing strategies to bridge political divides, promote more constructive political discourse, and perhaps even find common ground in increasingly polarized societies. It reminds us that political affiliations are complex, deeply personal, and often tied to our sense of identity and community.

Bettarelli, Luca, Andres Reiljan, and Emilie Van Haute. 2023. “A Regional Perspective to the Study of Affective Polarization.” European Journal of Political Research 62 (2): 645–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12548. 

Bryan, Bob. 2019. “The Government Shutdown Is Now the Longest on Record and the Fight between Trump and Democrats Is Only Getting Uglier. Here’s Everything You Missed.” Business Insider. January 21, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-timeline-deadline-trump-democrats-2019-1. 

Duffy, Bobby, Kirstie Hewlett, Julian McCrae, and John Hall. 2019. “Divided Britain? Polarisation and Fragmentation Trends in the UK.” The Policy Institute at King’s College London, September. 

Greene, Steven. 2002. “The Social-Psychological Measurement of Partisanship.” Political Behavior 24 (3): 171–97. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021859907145. 

Hetherington, Marc J., Meri T. Long, and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2016. “Revisiting the Myth: New Evidence of a Polarized Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 321–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw003. 

Huddy, Leonie. 2001. “From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory.” Political Psychology 22 (1): 127–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00230. 

Iyengar, Shanto, Yphtach Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky, Neil Malhotra, and Sean J. Westwood. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22 (1): 129–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034. 

Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038. 

Kane, John V., Lilliana Mason, and Julie Wronski. 2021. “Who’s at the Party? Group Sentiments, Knowledge, and Partisan Identity.” The Journal of Politics 83 (4): 1783–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/715072. 

Levendusky, Matthew S. 2018. “Americans, Not Partisans: Can Priming American National Identity Reduce Affective Polarization?” The Journal of Politics 80 (1): 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/693987. 

Mael, Fred A., and Lois E. Tetrick. 1992. “Identifying Organizational Identification.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 52 (4): 813–24. 

Mason, Lilliana. 2016. “A Cross-Cutting Calm: How Social Sorting Drives Affective Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (S1): 351–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw001. 

Mason, Lilliana, and Julie Wronski. 2018. “One Tribe to Bind Them All: How Our Social Group Attachments Strengthen Partisanship.” Political Psychology 39 (S1): 257–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12485. 

McCoy, Jennifer, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer. 2018. “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities.” American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 16–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576. 

Merz, Eva-Maria, Carlo Schuengel, and Hans-Joachim Schulze. 2009. “Intergenerational Relations Across 4 Years: Well-Being Is Affected by Quality, Not by Support Exchange.” The Gerontologist 49 (4): 536–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp043. 

Shi, Haoran, Wanting Wang, Xin Ni Goh, Jorge Perez, Valeria Dibisceglia, Yi Hsuan Hsin, Pia Schmoeckel, Dario Krpan, and Liam Delaney. 2024. “Predictors of Partisan Strength and In-Party Affect: A Scoping Review.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03974-7. 

Tajfel, Henri. 1974. “Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour.” Social Science Information 13 (2): 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204. 

Westfall, Jacob, Leaf Van Boven, John R. Chambers, and Charles M. Judd. 2015. “Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States: Party Identity Strength and Attitude Extremity Exacerbate the Perceived Partisan Divide.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 (2): 145–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569849.