Ideological and partisan biases in ratings of candidate quality in U.S. House elections
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10763196 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Danielle Joesten Martins (0000-0003-2159-8083, Department of Political Science California State University, Sacramento Sacramento California USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 103 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 622-634 |
| Publication date | 2022-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Science Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0038-4941 • E-ISSN: 1540-6237 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/ssqu.13159 |
| OpenAlex | W4229365738 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 33 |
Objective This article explores whether voters evaluate candidates’ ideology, partisanship, and quality independently or exhibit behavior consistent with motivating reasoning, rating co‐partisans and candidates ideologically similar to themselves as more competent. Methods Using a survey of voters and experts from 2010 U.S. House elections, I estimate a model predicting an individual's rating of incumbent candidate competence for office and challenger candidate competence for office. Results Individuals ideologically distant from a candidate rate the candidate as less competent, yet rate co‐partisan candidates as more competent. For incumbents, opposing partisanship amplifies the negative effect of ideological distance on candidate quality ratings, and shared partisanship mitigates the negative effect of ideological distance. Conclusion Only incumbents rated as the most competent can overcome the ideological and partisan biases of voters. Consistent with theories of affective polarization, these results imply that polarization runs deeper than partisan or ideological differences–it is personal
Competence (human resources) · Ideology · Polarization (electrochemistry) · Political science · Politics · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Gender Politics and Representation · Law · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology
Candidates and Voters
Why Washington Won't Work
How Affective Polarization Shapes Americans’ Political Beliefs
Bully Partisan or Partisan Bully
Nationalization in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections
The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate
Proximity voting in the 2010 U.S. House elections
The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century
Inspected by #1184063113
Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections
Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents
Americans, Not Partisans
When Candidates Value Good Character
Candidates Matter
Is Polarization a Myth
Extremely High Quality
Policy over party
Reducing Affective Polarization
One Tribe to Bind Them All
The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues
How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization
Biased Judgment of Political Bias
Extracting Wisdom from Experts and Small Crowds
Fear and Loathing across Party Lines
The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States
Candidate Positioning in US Congressional Elections
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Political Polarization in the American Public
Affect, Not Ideology
The case for motivated reasoning
Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America
Spatial Models of Party Competition
Resurgent Mass Partisanship
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |