Abortion Opinion and Partisan Choice: Untangling the Causal Dynamics

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Robert S Erikson
{"title":"Abortion Opinion and Partisan Choice: Untangling the Causal Dynamics","authors":"Robert S Erikson","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqae041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Starting in the 1980s, U.S. voters began dividing on the abortion issue into pro-life Republicans and pro-choice Democrats. This study shows that the predominant direction of causality was that abortion opinion caused changes in partisanship rather than the reverse, which then had downstream consequences for vote choice. Working with the Youth Parent Socialization Panel Study, I show that those taking pro-choice and pro-life positions in 1982 subsequently changed their party identification to align with those views. By contrast, Democrats and Republicans, as of 1982, did not realign their abortion positions. The partisan conversions were concentrated among ideologically engaged (IE) respondents, especially IE women, who found themselves out of step with their party on abortion. By triggering changes in party identification, panelists’ abortion stances as early as 1982 influenced their vote choices downstream in the 1996 presidential election. Thus, issue-based realignment is viewed here in real time with data from a panel study.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqae041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Starting in the 1980s, U.S. voters began dividing on the abortion issue into pro-life Republicans and pro-choice Democrats. This study shows that the predominant direction of causality was that abortion opinion caused changes in partisanship rather than the reverse, which then had downstream consequences for vote choice. Working with the Youth Parent Socialization Panel Study, I show that those taking pro-choice and pro-life positions in 1982 subsequently changed their party identification to align with those views. By contrast, Democrats and Republicans, as of 1982, did not realign their abortion positions. The partisan conversions were concentrated among ideologically engaged (IE) respondents, especially IE women, who found themselves out of step with their party on abortion. By triggering changes in party identification, panelists’ abortion stances as early as 1982 influenced their vote choices downstream in the 1996 presidential election. Thus, issue-based realignment is viewed here in real time with data from a panel study.
堕胎观点与党派选择:解读因果关系
从 20 世纪 80 年代开始,美国选民在堕胎问题上开始分为支持堕胎的共和党人和支持堕胎的民主党人。本研究表明,因果关系的主要方向是堕胎观点导致党派立场的变化,而不是相反,这对投票选择产生了下游影响。通过青少年父母社会化小组研究,我发现那些在 1982 年持支持堕胎和支持生命权立场的人随后改变了他们的党派认同,以与这些观点保持一致。相比之下,截至 1982 年,民主党人和共和党人并未调整其堕胎立场。党派转换主要集中在参与意识形态活动(IE)的受访者中,尤其是参与意识形态活动的女性,她们发现自己在堕胎问题上与所在党派格格不入。通过引发政党认同的变化,小组成员早在 1982 年的堕胎立场就影响了他们在 1996 年总统选举中的下游投票选择。因此,我们在此通过小组研究的数据实时观察了基于议题的调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Political Science Quarterly
Political Science Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Published continuously since 1886, Political Science Quarterly or PSQ is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal covering government, politics and policy. A nonpartisan journal, PSQ is edited for both political scientists and general readers with a keen interest in public and foreign affairs. Each article is based on objective evidence and is fully refereed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信