Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Become a Reviewer!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Political Research Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Killian, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wilcox, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Do Abortion Attitudes Lead to Party Switching?

Mitchell Killian

George Washington University, Washington, D.C, mkillian{at}gwu.edu

Clyde Wilcox

Georgetown University, Washington, D.C, wilcoxc{at}georgetown.edu

The notion that issues and ideology can move partisanship remains controversial. The authors explore the stronger claim that issues can lead people to switch political parties and whether the effect of abortion attitudes is asymmetrical (i.e., abortion attitudes may influence party switching in only one direction). They show that in several short-term National Election Studies panels, pro-life Democrats were significantly more likely than other Democrats to become Republicans, but pro-choice Republicans were not likely to become Democrats. However, using panel data over a long time frame, 1982 to 1997, the authors also demonstrate that the cumulative effect of abortion attitudes led pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans to switch parties.

Key Words: party identification • abortion • party switching • changes in party identification

References

  • Abramowitz, Alan I. 1995. It's abortion stupid. Journal of Politics 57:176-96.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics 60: 634-52.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Adams, Greg D. 1997. Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science 41:718-37.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Allsop, Dee, and Herbert Weisberg. 1988. Change in party identification in an election campaign. American Journal of Political Science 32:996-1017.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. 1995. American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science 39:1055-82.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bartels, Larry. 2002. Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24:117-50.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Bowler, Shaun, Stephen P. Nicholson, and Gary M. Segura. 2006. Earthquakes and aftershocks: Race, direct democracy, and partisan change. American Journal of Political Science 50:146-59.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Carmines, Edward G., and James Woods. 2002. The role of party activists in the evolution of the abortion issue. Political Behavior 24:361-77.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Carroll, Raymond J., David Ruppert, and Leonard A. Stefanski. 1995. Measurement error in nonlinear models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.
  • Carsey, Thomas M., and Geoffrey C. Layman. 2006. Changing sides or changing minds? Party conversion, issue conversion, and partisan change on the abortion issue. American Journal of Political Science 50:464-77.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Clark, John A., John M. Bruce, John H. Kessel, and William G. Jacoby. 1991. I'd rather switch than fight: Lifelong Democrats and converts to Republicanism among campaign activists. American Journal of Political Science 35:577-97.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Ted G. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. 1992. Between two absolutes: Public opinion on abortion. Boulder, CO: Westview.
  • ---. 1994a. Issue voting in gubernatorial elections: Abortion and post-Webster politics. Journal of Politics 56:187-99.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • ---. 1994b. Issue voting in U.S. Senate elections: The abortion issue in 1990. Congress and the Presidency 21:99-112.
  • Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Clyde Wilcox, and Frederick Hartwig. 1993. The abortion issue down ticket: The Virginia lieutenant governor's race of 1989. Women and Politics 12 (4): 5-18.[CrossRef]
  • Festinger, Leon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
  • Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Franklin, Charles H. 1984. Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification. American Journal of Political Science 28:459-78.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Franklin, Charles H., and Liane C. Kosaki. 1989. Republican schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and abortion. American Political Science Review 83:751-71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Goren, Paul. 2005. Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science 49:881-96.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Green, Donald Philip, and Bradley Palmquist. 1990. Of artifacts and partisan instability. American Journal of Political Science 34:872-902.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • ---. 1994. How stable is party identification? Political Behavior 16:437-66.[CrossRef]
  • Green, Donald Philip, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Heider, Fritz. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
  • Jelen, Ted, and Clyde Wilcox. 2003. Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56:489-500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Jennings, M. Kent, Gregory B. Markus, Richard G. Niemi, and Laura Stoker. 2005. Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1965-1997: Four waves combined. ICPSR04037-v1. Computer file. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies/Survey Research Center [Producer], Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor].
  • Johnson, Timothy R., and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. The public's conditional response to Supreme Court decisions. American Political Science Review 92:299-309.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1992. The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2003. ReLogit: Rare events logistic regression. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (2): 137-63.
  • Layman, Geoffrey C., and Thomas M. Carsey. 1998. Why do party activists convert? An analysis of individual-level change on the abortion issue. Political Research Quarterly 31:723-40.
  • ---. 2002. Party polarization and "conflict extension" in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46:786-802.[CrossRef]
  • Lublin, David. 2004. The Republican South: Democratization and partisan change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • MacKuen, Michael B., Robert S. Erikson, and James A Stimson. 1989. Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review 83:1125-42.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Maxwell, Carol J. C. 2002. Pro-life activists in America: Meaning, motivation, and direct action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Miller, Warren E., and J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Norrander, Barbara. 1999. Evolution of the gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly 63:566-76.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. 2002. Of moods and morals: The dynamics of opinion on abortion and gay rights. In Understanding public opinion, ed. Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox, 121-48. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  • Putz, David W. 2002. Partisan conversion in the 1990s: Ideological realignment meets measurement theory. Journal of Politics 64:1199-209.[Web of Science]
  • Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, Anders Skrondal, and Andrew Pickles. 2003. Maximum likelihood estimation of generalized linear models with covariate measurement error. Stata Journal 3 (4): 385-410.
  • Scott, Jacqueline, and Howard Schuman. 1988. Attitude strength and social action in the abortion dispute. American Sociological Review 53:785-93.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Stanley, Harold W., and Richard G. Niemi. 1999. Party coalitions in transition: Partisanship and group support, 1952-1996. In Reelection 1996: How Americans voted, ed. Herbert F. Weisberg and Janet Box-Steffensmeier, 162-80. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
  • Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu.
  • Verba, Sidney, Kay Schlozman, and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Boston: Harvard University Press.
  • Wiley, David E., and James A. Wiley. 1970. The estimation of measurement error in panel data. American Sociological Review 35:112-17.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Wlezien, Christopher, and Malcolm Goggin. 1993. The courts, interest groups, and public opinion about abortion. Political Behavior 15:381-405.[CrossRef]
  • Zaller, John R. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

This version was published on December 1, 2008

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4, 561-573 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1065912907312981
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Killian, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wilcox, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?