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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American politics research 2022-05, Vol.50 (3), p.303-311
Main Authors: Garzia, Diego, Ferreira da Silva, Frederico
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