Loading…
The Electoral Consequences of Affective Polarization? Negative Voting in the 2020 US Presidential Election
About one third of American voters cast a vote more “against” than “for” a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election. This pattern, designated by negative voting, has been initially understood by rational choice scholarship as a product of cognitive dissonance and/or retrospective evaluations. Thi...
Saved in:
Published in: | American politics research 2022-05, Vol.50 (3), p.303-311 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3 |
container_end_page | 311 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 303 |
container_title | American politics research |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Garzia, Diego Ferreira da Silva, Frederico |
description | About one third of American voters cast a vote more “against” than “for” a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election. This pattern, designated by negative voting, has been initially understood by rational choice scholarship as a product of cognitive dissonance and/or retrospective evaluations. This article revisits this concept through the affective polarization framework in the light of the rise of political sectarianism in American society. Based on an original CAWI survey fielded after the 2020 election, our regression analysis demonstrates that the predicted probability of casting a negative vote significantly increases among individuals for whom out-candidate hate outweighs in-candidate love. Negative voting is less prevalent among partisans as their higher levels of in-group affection can offset out-group contempt. By asserting the enduring relevance of negative voting in American presidential elections, we aim at stimulating further research and discussion of its implications for democratic representation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1532673X221074633 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9028101</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1532673X221074633</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2649516944</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1rVDEUhoMotlZ_gBsJuHFza04-790oZagfULRgK-5CTM6dZriTtMmdgv56M51av3CVkPO8T3JyCHkK7BDAmJegBNdGfOEcmJFaiHtkH5TinRBG3N_uBe-2wB55VOuKMeCyNw_JnlBSDy27T1ZnF0iPJ_RzLm6ii5wqXm0weaw0j_RoHFspXiM9zZMr8bubY06v6Qdcupvjz3mOaUljonMTccYZPf9ETwvWGDDNsTlv7C31mDwY3VTxye16QM7fHJ8t3nUnH9--XxyddF5qPXcee-Zh5Ez1xjjstZE4aNkHP2pjBEKQgnPBAMIQgjeyxQbFvR6CUr0O4oC82nkvN1_XGHx7RmvNXpa4duWbzS7aPyspXthlvrYD4z0waIIXt4KS21_U2a5j9ThNLmHeVMu1UkpLULKhz_9CV3lTUmuvUXJQoAe5pWBH-ZJrLTjePQaY3U7S_jPJlnn2exd3iZ-ja8DhDqhuib-u_b_xB5xLpcY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2649516944</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Electoral Consequences of Affective Polarization? Negative Voting in the 2020 US Presidential Election</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Nexis UK</source><source>SAGE:Jisc Collections:SAGE Journals Read and Publish 2023-2024:2025 extension (reading list)</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><creator>Garzia, Diego ; Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</creator><creatorcontrib>Garzia, Diego ; Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</creatorcontrib><description>About one third of American voters cast a vote more “against” than “for” a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election. This pattern, designated by negative voting, has been initially understood by rational choice scholarship as a product of cognitive dissonance and/or retrospective evaluations. This article revisits this concept through the affective polarization framework in the light of the rise of political sectarianism in American society. Based on an original CAWI survey fielded after the 2020 election, our regression analysis demonstrates that the predicted probability of casting a negative vote significantly increases among individuals for whom out-candidate hate outweighs in-candidate love. Negative voting is less prevalent among partisans as their higher levels of in-group affection can offset out-group contempt. By asserting the enduring relevance of negative voting in American presidential elections, we aim at stimulating further research and discussion of its implications for democratic representation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1532-673X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3373</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221074633</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35469326</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Candidates ; Cognitive dissonance ; Group identity ; Partisanship ; Polarization ; Presidential elections ; Rational choice ; Sectarianism ; Voters ; Voting</subject><ispartof>American politics research, 2022-05, Vol.50 (3), p.303-311</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022 2022 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7858-4067</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,33200</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35469326$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garzia, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</creatorcontrib><title>The Electoral Consequences of Affective Polarization? Negative Voting in the 2020 US Presidential Election</title><title>American politics research</title><addtitle>Am Polit Res</addtitle><description>About one third of American voters cast a vote more “against” than “for” a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election. This pattern, designated by negative voting, has been initially understood by rational choice scholarship as a product of cognitive dissonance and/or retrospective evaluations. This article revisits this concept through the affective polarization framework in the light of the rise of political sectarianism in American society. Based on an original CAWI survey fielded after the 2020 election, our regression analysis demonstrates that the predicted probability of casting a negative vote significantly increases among individuals for whom out-candidate hate outweighs in-candidate love. Negative voting is less prevalent among partisans as their higher levels of in-group affection can offset out-group contempt. By asserting the enduring relevance of negative voting in American presidential elections, we aim at stimulating further research and discussion of its implications for democratic representation.</description><subject>Candidates</subject><subject>Cognitive dissonance</subject><subject>Group identity</subject><subject>Partisanship</subject><subject>Polarization</subject><subject>Presidential elections</subject><subject>Rational choice</subject><subject>Sectarianism</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>1532-673X</issn><issn>1552-3373</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1rVDEUhoMotlZ_gBsJuHFza04-790oZagfULRgK-5CTM6dZriTtMmdgv56M51av3CVkPO8T3JyCHkK7BDAmJegBNdGfOEcmJFaiHtkH5TinRBG3N_uBe-2wB55VOuKMeCyNw_JnlBSDy27T1ZnF0iPJ_RzLm6ii5wqXm0weaw0j_RoHFspXiM9zZMr8bubY06v6Qdcupvjz3mOaUljonMTccYZPf9ETwvWGDDNsTlv7C31mDwY3VTxye16QM7fHJ8t3nUnH9--XxyddF5qPXcee-Zh5Ez1xjjstZE4aNkHP2pjBEKQgnPBAMIQgjeyxQbFvR6CUr0O4oC82nkvN1_XGHx7RmvNXpa4duWbzS7aPyspXthlvrYD4z0waIIXt4KS21_U2a5j9ThNLmHeVMu1UkpLULKhz_9CV3lTUmuvUXJQoAe5pWBH-ZJrLTjePQaY3U7S_jPJlnn2exd3iZ-ja8DhDqhuib-u_b_xB5xLpcY</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Garzia, Diego</creator><creator>Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7858-4067</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>The Electoral Consequences of Affective Polarization? Negative Voting in the 2020 US Presidential Election</title><author>Garzia, Diego ; Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Candidates</topic><topic>Cognitive dissonance</topic><topic>Group identity</topic><topic>Partisanship</topic><topic>Polarization</topic><topic>Presidential elections</topic><topic>Rational choice</topic><topic>Sectarianism</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garzia, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Journals Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American politics research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Garzia, Diego</au><au>Ferreira da Silva, Frederico</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Electoral Consequences of Affective Polarization? Negative Voting in the 2020 US Presidential Election</atitle><jtitle>American politics research</jtitle><addtitle>Am Polit Res</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>303</spage><epage>311</epage><pages>303-311</pages><issn>1532-673X</issn><eissn>1552-3373</eissn><abstract>About one third of American voters cast a vote more “against” than “for” a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election. This pattern, designated by negative voting, has been initially understood by rational choice scholarship as a product of cognitive dissonance and/or retrospective evaluations. This article revisits this concept through the affective polarization framework in the light of the rise of political sectarianism in American society. Based on an original CAWI survey fielded after the 2020 election, our regression analysis demonstrates that the predicted probability of casting a negative vote significantly increases among individuals for whom out-candidate hate outweighs in-candidate love. Negative voting is less prevalent among partisans as their higher levels of in-group affection can offset out-group contempt. By asserting the enduring relevance of negative voting in American presidential elections, we aim at stimulating further research and discussion of its implications for democratic representation.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>35469326</pmid><doi>10.1177/1532673X221074633</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7858-4067</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1532-673X |
ispartof | American politics research, 2022-05, Vol.50 (3), p.303-311 |
issn | 1532-673X 1552-3373 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9028101 |
source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Nexis UK; SAGE:Jisc Collections:SAGE Journals Read and Publish 2023-2024:2025 extension (reading list); Worldwide Political Science Abstracts |
subjects | Candidates Cognitive dissonance Group identity Partisanship Polarization Presidential elections Rational choice Sectarianism Voters Voting |
title | The Electoral Consequences of Affective Polarization? Negative Voting in the 2020 US Presidential Election |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T21%3A58%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Electoral%20Consequences%20of%20Affective%20Polarization?%20Negative%20Voting%20in%20the%202020%20US%20Presidential%20Election&rft.jtitle=American%20politics%20research&rft.au=Garzia,%20Diego&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=303&rft.epage=311&rft.pages=303-311&rft.issn=1532-673X&rft.eissn=1552-3373&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1532673X221074633&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2649516944%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-ce80c1f205877ae8674e9648dcf6773e1d43223011d9ddc74c46952c69d5586d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2649516944&rft_id=info:pmid/35469326&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1532673X221074633&rfr_iscdi=true |