title page

Running head: MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 1

The Multiple Matching Perspective on Value versus Identity: Investigating How Political Ideology

and Party Identity Contribute to Citizens’ Support for Political Candidates

Hui Bai

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Author Note

Hui Bai is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Psychology at the University of

Minnesota, Twin Cities. *Address correspondence to Hui Bai, Department of Psychology,

University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455; e-mail:

[email protected].

Maked Mancip iho Aho Infomaion

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 2

Abstract

Many past studies tested effects of political value (i.e., ideology) and identity (i.e., party identity) on

support for political candidates. Little has compared their effects by considering them from the

perspectives of citizens and the candidate. This paper takes them into consideration by introducing

and using the multiple matching perspective. It compares how much the predictive power of

citiens ideology and political identity are moderated by a candidates ideology as well as the

candidates party affiliation. Therefore, four types of matches (i.e., statistical moderations) are

compared under this perspective: A. citizens ideology-candidates ideolog match, B. citizens party-

candidates ideology cross-match, C. citizens ideology-candidates party cross-match, and D.

citizens party-candidates party match. The following novel and nuanced patterns about the role of

ideology and party identity are uncovered under this perspective using four studies (total N=41,986):

1. The effect of ideological match (A) is large, robust, and consistent. 2. The moderating effect of

candidates ideolog (A and B) is more poerfl than candidates party affiliation (C and D) except

during the final stage of a presidential race (when A and D are similar). 3. Citizens party identity

may guide them to support a candidate whose ideology is congruent with the party that citizens

identify with (B), but it is less so for the reverse of it (less evidence for C). Finally, a supplemental

study shows that citiens ideolog is more central to their self-concept and more moralized than

their party identity, and this may explain the primacy of ideology over party identity.

Key words: Party identification, ideology, candidate support, politics

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 3

The Multiple Matching Perspective on Value versus Identity: Investigating How Political Ideology

and Party Identity Contribte to Citiens Spport for Political Candidates

Introduction

Value (e.g., Schwartz, 2013) and identity (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979) are powerful psychological predispositions that can shape how people develop their preferences and how they behave in the social world. In the study of political psychology, political ideology (or ideological orientation; e.g., Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009) and party identity (or party identification; e.g.,

Green, Palmquist & Schickler, 2004) are arguably the most frequently researched type of value and identity. Many researchers have investigated and debated how they might guide citizens to form social and political preferences. Past studies have also investigated how these two variables are associated with support for political candidates; nonetheless, these studies have often failed to consider the political ideology and party identity of citizens as well as that of candidates.

After reviewing past literature on party identity and ideology, this paper discusses an approach that simultaneously takes into consideration the party identity and ideology of citizens as well as the party identity and ideology of candidates to predict support for political candidates (i.e., the multiple matching perspective). By using the aforementioned approach, this paper compares the relative roles that ideology and party identity play in predicting support for candidates. It also discusses patterns and effects about ideology and party identity that have evaded the attention of researchers who did not consider their effects from perceiers side and targets side together.

Party Identity is a Meaningful Social Identity That is Related to Important Consequences

Simply put, party identity is a social identity that reflects to what extent people see themselves as a partisan (Greene, 2004). Earlier scholars view party identity as something instrumental, conceptualizing it as a mere reflection of citiens agreement ith the part (Downs,

1957) or their ealation of parties performance (i.e., the instrumental perspective; Fiorina, 1976; MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 4 see also Franklin & Jackson 1983). Recent scholars view it as citiens beliefs about who they are and who they feel loyal to (Campbell et al., 1960; Green, Palmquist, & Schickler, 2004), which fulfills their social and psychological motivations, encompassing their enduring emotional attachment and psychological orientation (i.e., expressive perspective; see also Fowler & Kam, 2007; Gerber et al.,

2011; Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012; Lupu 2013). In a a, citiens part identit is like sports fans identification with their favorite sport team (Mason, 2015).

Past studies have generated a cornucopia of findings about where party identity comes from and what it leads to. On the individual level, studies show that the party that citizens identify with can reflect their genetic dispositions (Settle, Dawes, & Fowler, 2009), demographic background

(Green, Palmquist, & Schickler, 2004), and personality (Gerber et al., 2012). Socially, party identity can be shaped by social networks (Lupton, Singh, & Thornton, 2015), uncertainty (Hohman, Hogg,

& Bligh, 2010), and perceived threat from racial out-groups (Craig & Richeson, 2014).

Regarding the effects of party identity, past studies have found that party identity can shape citiens perception (Druckman, Peterson, & Slothuus, 2013) and evaluation of information (e.g.,

Bartels, 2002; Bisgaard, 2015; Bolsen & Druckman, 2018), and as a result, affect their political attitudes (Campbell et al., 1960; Carsey & Layman; 2006). Just like how sports fans are motivated to see what happens in a game to be consistent with their own narratives (Hastorf & Cantrill, 1954), partisans reception of political information, accordingly, is filtered through a perpetual screen such that they are motivated to be more receptive to information that is more favorable to their own parties.

The effect of party identification can reach far beyond the political arena, and it can even shape perceptions and attitudes on the personal level (Hui, 2013; Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012). For example, in the United States, partisans prefer to live in neighborhoods where their co-partisans live

(Hui, 2013), and they prefer their children marrying someone who shares their party identity MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 5

(Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012). The mutual dislike and hostility between rival partisans are large, growing, and, quite remarkably, far exceed that of inter-racial relations (Haidt & Hetherington 2012;

Iyengar, Sood, & Lelkes 2012; Iyengar & Westwood, 2015).

In short, just like any other social identity, party identity can shape how people think, feel and behave. Psychologically speaking, a social identity, such as party identity, is a powerful variable because it can fulfill two fundamental needs for us, according to Brewer (1991). One need is about inclusion, or belonging to a group, and the other need is about exclusion, or distinguishing from others. When ones part takes a stance on an isse, partisans are motiated to adopt the stance from their party. Consequently, party identification motivates them to vote for their party because partisans root for their team while at the same time to root against the rival party (Green, Palmquist,

& Schickler, 2002).

Thus, many theories have suggested that party identity can have powerful effects on peoples political attitudes and behaviors. However, before moving forward, it should be noted that many studies described above compare the differences between Republicans and Democrats. As many

Republicans are also conservatives and many Democrats are also liberals, it is possible that these patterns may be explained by ideology instead. In other words, the differences between Republicans and Democrats may actually reflect the differences between liberals and conservatives, reflecting an omitted variable problem (more on this later). The above mentioned studies are still organized under the section about party identity because they were framed under the theories about party identity by the researchers who conducted the studies.

Political Ideology is an Important Domain of Value

Political ideology can be thought of as a set of beliefs, or organizing device (Knight, 2006, p622) about the role of government (Converse, 1964; Peffley and Hurwitz 1985), the proper order of society and the means to bring about it (Erikson & Tedin, 2003; Adorno et al. 1950, Campbell et MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 6 al. 1960, Kerlinger 1984). Even though citizens may understand ideology differently, overall, evidence suggests that they rely on a general left-right continuum to make sense of the political world (Jost, Napier, Federico, 2009).

Psychological researchers in the past have theorized political ideology as consisting of two inter-related psychological distinctions: 1. the acceptance versus rejection of inequality and 2. openness versus resistance to change or preferences for status quo (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, &

Sulloway, 2003). In a related vein, and correspondingly, evidence also suggests that political ideology may have social and economic dimensions (Feldman & Johnston, 2013). Furthermore, according to these works, political psychology should be considered as a social cognition motivated by psychological needs such as epistemic, existential and relational needs, and it heralds attitudes and beliefs such as specific issue positions, evaluations of parties and political candidates.

Just like research on party identity, past studies have also generated many findings about what demographic (e.g., Jacoby, 1991), personality (e.g., Duckitt et al, 2002; Gerber et al. 2010) and situation variables (e.g., Craig & Richeson, 2014; Bai & Federico, 2020) can shape ones ideology

(also see Jost, 2006 for a review), as well as what life outcomes and personal preferences political ideology can shape (e.g., Carney et al., 2008; Eastwick, Richeson, Son, & Finkel, 2009; Klofstad,

McDermott, & Hatemi, 2013). Nevertheless, it seems that more studies that compare how liberal/Democrats differ from conservative/Republicans are organized using the framework of party identity, as opposed to ideology. Similar to the issue about party identity, it is possible that these differences between liberals and conservatives are explained by party identity instead. In other words, they may have the omitted variable problem mentioned above by reflecting the tre differences between Republicans and Democrats. These studies are still organized under the section about ideology because the research questions were framed to be about ideology in these papers.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 7

Party Identity, Ideology, and Support for Political Candidates

Many past studies have also investigated how political identity and political values are related to each other. For example, researchers have shown that peoples political identit and their political values (and in some cases, expressed as issue positions) can shape each other (Abramowitz, &

Saunders, 2006; Luskin, McIver, & Carmines 1989; Page & Jones 1979; Goren, Federico, &

Kittilson, 2009) under different historical circumstances and situations (e.g., Pierce, 1970; Carmines,

McIver, & Stimson 1987; Abramowitz & Saunders, 1998) for different types of people (e.g., Franklin

& Jackson 1983; Carsey & Layman, 2006; Highton & Kam, 2010). Thus, the associations between party identity and political ideology are relatively dynamic. Scholars are continuing the debate about whether party identity or ideology is more fundamental, powerful, meaningful, or relevant (e.g., see

Page & Jones, 1979; Markus & Converse, 1979; Converse & Pierce, 1986; Fleury & Lewis-Beck,

1993 for earlier discussions; see Cohen, 2003; Kinder & Kalmoe, 2017; Azevedo, Jost, Rothmund &

Sterling, 2019; Kalmoe, 2020 for more recent discussions to this debate)1. Overall, both party identity and ideology have been found to be among the most potent predictors for political preferences (e.g., Lyons & Scheb, 1992; Erikson & Tedin, 2003; Jacoby, 1991; Jost, 2006), including evaluation of political candidates (see Rahn, 1993; Mondak, 1993; Barber & Pope, 2019 for findings about for party identity, and MacDonald & Rabinowitz, 1992; Blais & Bodet, 2006; Golder &

Stramski, 2010 for findings about ideology).

Part of the reason that the debate is yet to be resolved is that party identity and ideology are theoretically and empirically related, and they can dynamically shape each other, as discussed above

(also see discussion from Barber & Pope, 2018). As a result, disentangling and comparing the effect

1 For the sake of this paper, ideology and party identity are assumed to be real and distinct (though related) constructs that reflect what they were theorized to reflect, i.e., ideology is a set of values and beliefs about the government and society, and it is not a total reflection of party identity, and in contrast, party identity is an affiliation and attachment to a political group, and it is not a total reflection of ideology. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 8 of party identity and ideology are challenging. However, there is another facet that contributes to this challenge, but it is often overlooked by researchers: when evaluating the role of party identity and ideology, researchers rarely take into consideration the party identity and ideology of citizens as well as the party affiliation and ideology of the candidate simultaneously.

The Multiple Matching Perspective and Four Types of Matches of Party Identity and

Ideology

The multiple matching perspective is a perspective that investigates the roles of a set of variables that can describe both perceivers and targets. This perspective considers all possible matches between perceivers and targets on the set of variables and determines their effects on ones evaluation of the target. Illustrated in the case of political identity and ideology, one needs to consider party identity and ideology of citizens as well as that of political candidates in order to fully understand their roles in shaping citiens spport for political candidates.

In particular, citizens may consider how well their political identity and ideology each matches with that of a political candidate when deciding their support for the candidate. Therefore, four possible types of matches beteen the ariables from citiens side and the variables from the candidate side may jointl contribte to citiens spport for candidates. For the ease of interpretation, one may refer to Table 1a, the first four columns of Table 1b, and Figure 1 that summarize these matches conceptually and statistically as one reads about the following explanations and discussions for the meaning of these four types of matches.

Table 1a. Conceptualizing the Four Types of Matches

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 9

The ciie ideg-candidate ideg ach/ideological match (i.e., A) is the match between citiens ideolog and that of a candidate. It can also be thoght of as the etent to hich the predictie effect of citiens ideolog is moderated b the candidates ideolog. The effect sie of this term reflects to what degree ones spport of a candidate is eplained b the similarit of ideolog between citizens and a candidate that they evaluate, net of other types of matches; a large effect size for this term, therefore, not onl sggest that citiens ideolog is meaningfl and relevant in determining their political opinion, but also that citizens are attuned to the political beliefs and

ales of the candidates. That is, citiens spport for political candidates reflects their on ales and beliefs (similar to the idea of spatial oting).

Figure 1. Graphical Representation of the Four Types of Matches MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 10

Table 1b. Comparing the Effect of the Four Types of Matches

Table 1c. Sample Characteristics Across Studies MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 11

The conceptual reverse of it for party identity is the ciie a-candidate a ach/party identity match (i.e., D). The effect size of this term suggests to what degree citizens support a candidate merely because they share a partisan background, net of other types of matches.

Therefore, the larger the effect size of this term, the more like sports fans citizens behave in their support of political candidatesif one identifies with a party, they root for any candidate who says that they are affiliated with that party, regardless of the candidates values and beliefs.

The remaining two types of matches are what shall be referred to as cross-match that can be interpreted with similar logic described above. Ciie a-candidate ideg cross-match (i.e., B) reflects whether a candidate shares the political values that are endorsed by the party that citizens identify with can play a role, net of other types of matches. In other words, it reflects whether citiens tne in candidates ideolog in the epression of their on (i.e., citiens) party identity.

Therefore, the larger the effect this match has, the more people who identify with their party prefers a candidate ho sonds like someone from their party, regardless if the candidate actually is affiliated with it. The effect of this term is like when a strong Democrat supports a liberal candidate, regardless if the candidate is actually a Democrat or not. Thus, one may infer that the significance of this term sggests that citiens part identit is smbolic and reflectie of their values and beliefs.

The final type of match is ciie ideg-candidate a cross-match (i.e., C). The meaning of this match may be a little bit difficult to understand because it does not make much sense for its corresponding effect to have very much predictive power above and beyond other types of matches.

Conceptually, this unintuitive match reflects the degree to hich a citiens spport for a candidate is guided by hether the citiens political ales match ell ith the ales endorsed by the party the candidate is affiliated with. The effect of this term is reflected in a scenario when a strong liberal supports a Democratic candidate, regardless if the candidate is actually liberal or not. For this term to be significant, citizens have to use a candidates party affiliation as a cue to infer the candidates MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 12 ideology, and then compare it against their own ideology. However, if a candidates ideology (either perceived or actual ideology of the candidate) is already considered by citizens (which is reflected in the inclusion of A in the model), it would not make very much sense for this term to have much predictive power above and beyond A.

In short, a citiens spport for a candidate may be guided by their party identity and ideology. In order to make sense of their effects, a multiple matching perspective may need to be used. In order to do so, four types of matches were conceptualized. Whereas A and C focus on the effects of citiens ideolog, B and D focses on the effect of citiens part identit. Whereas A and

B focs on candidates ideolog as a moderator, C and D focs on candidates part identit as a moderator. Therefore, by including all possible effects of ideology and party identity from both the citizen and candidate side, the multiple matching perspective can attenuate the omitted variable problem that was mentioned above. The primary goal of this paper is to compare and uncover nuanced roles of ideolog and part identit on citiens support for political candidates by using this perspective, which in turn illustrates the benefit of using this approach in research.

Overview of Current Studies

Respondents in Study 1 (N=619) and Study 2 (N=939) were asked to evaluate hypothetical candidates whose ideology and party affiliation were manipulated between-subject. Respondents in

Study 3 (N=39,228) were asked to evaluate real candidates from different parties with different levels of perceived symbolic ideology. Study 4 (N=1,200) is similar to Study 3 and uses objective measures of candidates ideolog. Throughout the models, the key variables for comparison are four interaction terms that correspond to the terms described in the second column of Table 1b. The interaction terms across studies are named somewhat differently to reflect the fact that the models are based on samples as opposed the poplation (e.g., citiens ideolog corresponds to

participants ideolog) and variances in designs across studies (e.g., D_ideo corresponds to MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 13

candidates ideolog), but they are all marked with letters from A through D in the tables to indicate which match they each correspond to. The effect size of the four interaction terms throughout the studies are summarized in Table 1b, which will be discussed in the general discussion section.

Both party identity (e.g., Greene, 2004; Weisberg, 1980; Alvarez, 1990) and political ideology

(e.g., Stimson, 1975; Azevedo, Jost, Rothmund, & Sterling, 2019) can be treated as multi- dimensional constructs and measured with multiple items. Nonetheless, reviewing any journals that are frequented by political psychologists, one can easily identify that researchers (particularly those who include party identity and ideology as covariates) often measure party identity and ideology with single seven-point scales that end p anchor from Strong Democrat to Strong Repblican or from Etremel liberal to Etremel conservative, because measuring them as single dimensional construct can usually capture sufficiently meaningful variances (e.g., Campbell et al.,

1960; Conover & Feldman, 1981; Macdonald & Rabinowitz, 1992). Therefore, with somewhat different wordings across studies, citiens part identit and ideology are both operationalized as such2.

All models across studies are ordinary least square linear regressions. The sample characteristics across studies are summarized in Table 1c. Data from all studies are pre-existing data from larger surveys collaboratively designed by different researchers for different purposes. All

2 Regarding ideology, researchers in the past have debated whether to measure ideology as concrete issue positions (i.e., the operational ideolog, e.g., Stimson, 1975) or a more global endorsement of liberalism or conseratism (i.e., the smbolic ideolog, e.g., Conoer & Feldman 1981; Ellis & Stimson 2012). This paper focses on symbolic ideology out of the following considerations. First, when it comes to ideology, evidence shows that, as opposed to having specific positions on specific issues, the mass public usually symbolically identifies with an overall political ideology (e.g., Conover & Feldman, 1981; Macdonald & Rabinowitz, 1992). Second, theoretically, this paper investigates the role of political ideology as a political value. As a generic and global belief, ideology may be reflected less well by positions on specific issues than an overall self-placement, as positions on individual issues may reflect many other practical concerns. In fact, gien that isses ma be framed to fit in different ideological narraties and oned b different parties, isse positions should be inestigated as a target as opposed to a predictor nder the mltiple match perspectie. Third, methodologically, measuring both ideology and party identity in similar format may be helpful to provide a fairer comparison for the effects of each construct. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 14 variables in all studies were rescaled to run from 0 to 1 whereas 1 represents a higher level of that construct before analyses. All analytical script and data for Studies 1 and 2 can be found in https://osf.io/empkz/?view_only=b4a56e2a54734ce2b28db95b972dcecb. Data for Studies 3 and 4 can be found in https://electionstudies.org/data-center/ All materials, including experimental stimuli, and wordings of questions from all studies can be found in Appendix A.

Study 1

Method

Participants and procedure. Participants are undergraduate students from a large mid-western university. In this study, each participant reviewed a hypothetical male political candidates profile.

The experiment has a 2 × 2 design. Participants were randomly assigned into one of the four conditions such that the party affiliation of the candidate (Democrat versus Republican) and the ideological orientation (liberal versus conservative) were manipulated independently. Thus, the candidate may be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. The party affiliation was manipulated with a short description of the candidates backgrond (i.e., Political Part Affiliation:

Democratic Party/Republican Party). The ideological orientation was manipulated with a statement on several issues attributed to the candidate. B).

Candidate support. After reviewing the profile, respondents were asked to indicate their affective feeling toward the candidate using a feeling thermometer (0=degree, 100=100 degree) and their likelihood of voting (0=0% of chance, 100=100% of chance) for the candidate. The two items were averaged to form the key dependent variable of the study, candidate support (=.96).

Ideology and party identity. Participants smbolic ideolog and part identification ere measured ith the item How would you describe your ideological preference in general? (1=Ver liberal; 7= Ver conseratie) and How would you describe your political party preference? MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 15

(1=Strong Democrat; 7=Strong Republican). Participants responded to these questions prior to their review of the candidates profile.

Results

Two indicator variables were created to represent the experimental conditions: D_party represents the party affiliation of the candidatewhereas D_party=0 refers to a Democratic affiliation, D_party= 1 represents a Republican affiliation. D_ideo represents the ideology of the candidatewhereas D_ideo =0 indicates that the candidate was attributed with a liberal statement,

D_ideo =1 indicates that the candidate was attributed with a conservative statement.

For the analysis, the candidate support variable was predicted by participants ideology, participants part identification, D_party, D_ideo, and gender, age, and income as covariates using linear regression. Importantly, the following four interaction terms were included to compare the effects of the four types of matches and they are: Participants' ideology × D_ideo (A), Participants' party × D_ideo (B), Participants' ideology × D_party (C), Participants' party × D_party (D). Finally,

Participants' ideology × D_party × D_ideo and Participants' party × D_party × D_ideo were included to test for potential three-way interactions. The results are summarized in Table 2. As the model includes a large number of related interaction terms that may be difficult to understand individually from the table, readers may review Figure 2 to understand the patterns that are plotted based on results from Table 2.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 16

Table 2. Study 1 Results

Figure 1a. Participant's ideology's predictive effect on candidate evaluation by candidates

ideology and party affiliation

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 17

Figure 1b. Participant's ideology's predictive effect on candidate evaluation by candidates

ideology and party affiliation

Discussion

As shown in Table 2, the terms for A and B are both significant, and reviewing Table 1b, they have relatively large effects when compared to that of C and D. In contrast, the term for C is not significant and that of D is marginally significant in the model. According to Figure 1a, participants smbolic conseratism is associated ith spport for conseratie candidates but opposition to liberal candidates, regardless if the candidates are Republicans or Democrats. The pattern is similar for the effect of participants part identification, except that the effect seems to be muted for liberal Republican candidates (see more discussion below and in Study 2).

No three way interaction was found as neither three way interaction was significant conceptually, this suggests that the ideological match effect (i.e., A) does not differ across

Democratic and Republican candidates (or alternatively, the effect of ideology-party cross-match does not differ based on the candidates part). Graphically, this can be understood as the overall interaction pattern described in the left pane is not significantly different from that of the right pane MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 18 in Figure 1a. Similarly, the overall pattern described in the left and right panes of Figure 1b are not significantly different, even though the lower right panel of Figure 1b may give readers an impression that the predictive effect of party identity does not have much to do with the support for a candidate who is a liberal Republican. This pattern will be discussed in the section for general discussion.

Overall, these results suggest that there is evidence for the effects of ideological match (i.e.,

A) and citizens party-candidates ideology cross-match (i.e., B) in other words, the predictive effect of participants ideolog as well as participants party identification depend on the candidates ideology. As expected, there is no evidence for the effect of citiens ideology-candidates part cross-match (i.e., C). There is, nevertheless, some evidence for the effect of the party identity match (i.e., D). Reviewing the size of the coefficients for the four types of matches (see Table 1b), it seems that the expressions of citizens ideology and party identity in the form of support for a candidate depend a lot more on the candidates ideolog than the candidates part affiliation.

Finally, comparing the effect size of all four types of matches, that of ideological match (i.e., A) seems to be the most powerful match among all four types of matches.

Though Study 1 initially revealed the relatively critical role of political ideology when compared to political identity, this study has some limitations. Most notably, this study relies on a student sample, and therefore, it is not very representative. In order to replicate the findings from

Study 1 using a non-student sample, Study 2 was conducted. Furthermore, although Study 1 shows that candidates party affiliation has relatively muted effects, there is an alternative explanation for this finding: that is, participants may have not paid attention to the party affiliation of the candidate.

This limitation will be discussed below in Study 2 as well.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 19

Study 2

The primary goal of Study 2 is to replicate the findings from Study 1 using a more nationally diverse sample. The survey was distributed on Lucid, an online survey platform that provides a nationally diverse participant pool.

In this study, participants reviewed a hpothetical political candidates profile like in Study 1 ecept that the candidates gender (female versus male) and race (Black versus White) were manipulated using the profile pictures, in addition to ideological orientation (liberal versus conservative) and the party affiliation (Democrat versus Republican) and therefore, the experiment has a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 design. The effect of race and gender of the hypothetical candidate are not central to the main aim of the current study3. A pilot study shows that this experimental procedure is able to successfully maniplate participants perception abot the candidates ideolog as well as party affiliation, hence it is unlikely that participants did not pay attention to the party affiliation of the candidate (the detailed results for the pilot study can be found in Appendix B, and the full results of this pilot study was originally reported in Appendix B of citation anonymized for peer review).

The dependent variable, candidate support (=.95), was measured and coded in the same way as Study 1. Participants were asked about their ideology in a similar way as Study 1 and their party identity was measured by Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a

Democrat, an Independent, or what? and then followed up with how strong they identify with the party that they selected or whether they lean toward one party more. The results were recoded into one item so that a higher score represents a stronger identification with the Republican party.

3 These variables were manipulated because the data from this portion of the survey was also used in an unrelated study in the past, which investigated a different set of hypotheses about how racial and gender attitudes predict support for candidates who are Black versus White and male versus female (citation anonymized for peer review). MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 20

Results

Analysis of Study 2 results is very similar to that of Study 1 such that it includes all predictors used in Study 1 and they can be interpreted in the same way. In addition, the model includes the folloing three coariates: participants edcation (hich as not measred in Std 1), D_race, and

D_gender to reflect the conditions about gender and race (1=White or male, and 0=otherwise for these variables). The results are summarized in Table 3, and the patterns that describe the four key interaction terms are described in Figure 2a and Figure 2b

Table 3. Study 2 Results

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 21

Figure 2a. Participant's ideology's predictive effect on candidate evaluation by candidates

ideology and party affiliation

Figure 2b. Participant's party identifications predictive effect on candidate evaluation by

candidates ideology and party affiliation MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 22

Discussion

The overall pattern of results for Study 2 is similar to that of Study 1. The terms for the effects of citiens ideolog-candidates ideolog match (i.e., A) and citiens part-candidates ideology cross-match (i.e., B) are both significant and large among the four types of matches.

However, different from Study 1, that of A is less than B. In other words, the predictive effect of participants ideology as well as participants party identy depend on the candidates ideolog more than the candidates part. Like in Study 1, the effect of a citiens ideolog-candidates part cross- match (i.e., C) is not significant. The term for D is significant in the model.

Like in Study 1, no three way interaction was found for D_part D_ideo participants ideology, which renders similar interpretations as in Study 1the patterns described in the left and right pane of Figure 2a are not significantly different. In particular, though the red bar in the left pane indicates that the positive slope it represents is not significant, this lack of significance is not significantly different from the positive slope represented in the red bar in the right pane of Figure

2b.

In contrast to Study 1, there was a significant three-way interaction for the term D_party ×

D_ideo participants partthis suggests that the overall pattern described in the left and lower right panels of Figure 2b are significantly different. In particular, as shown in Figure 2a, the predictive effect of party identity does not seem to have much to do with the support for a candidate who is a liberal Republican (i.e., the blue bar in the right panel), but it does have a predictive effect with the support for candidate who is a liberal Democrat (i.e., the blue bar in the right panel). This pattern will be discussed in the section for general discussion.

In short, reslts from Std 1 and Std 2 both sggest that the epressions of citiens ideology and party identity in the form of support for a candidate depend a lot more on the candidates ideolog than the candidates part affiliation. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 23

Study 3

Though Study 1 and Study 2 can provide results with relatively good internal validity using experimental methods, it is unclear if these findings are also externally valid. In order to assess if the patterns discovered in Study 1 and Study 2 are generalizable to the general population, Study 3 uses a large and nationally representative dataset. Furthermore, Study 1 and Study 2 do not distinguish the political context, i.e., whether a given candidate is running for a more local position such as one in the House of Representative or a more national and prominent position, such as the presidency.

Study 3 therefore tests if the effects of the matches differ across the elections for House of

Representatives and the presidency.

Method

Study 3 uses nationally-representative data from the American National Election Studies time series collected across seventeen election cycles. The cross-section surveys in this series correspond to each presidential election between 1972 and 2016 and some midterm elections (i.e., the Time Series Cumulative Data File; see Table 1).

Participants ideology and party identity were measured in a similar way as in Study 2.

Candidates ideology and party in Study 3 were not manipulated. Instead, candidates ideology was measured using an item about the perceived ideology of the candidates (i.e., ideolog placement), which asks participants to place a target candidate on a scale ranging from extreme liberal to extreme conservative on (Where would you place [the Candidate] on this scale?; see Appendi A for the wording of the full instruction for the item). Candidates part affiliation as coded ith their actal party affiliations.

The candidate support variable was measured using participants ratings on the feeling thermometers that were used in Study 1 and Study 2. Participants rated both Democratic and

Republican candidates in all years. However, in some ears stdies, participants only rated House of MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 24

Representatives candidates (of their own district) with the ideological placement and feeling thermometer, and in other years, the participants only rated presidential candidates (see Table 1 for which ears data as inclded in hich analsis). Thus, analyses for the House of Representative candidates and presidential candidates were conducted seperately.

Results

Two separate analyses were conducted for support for House of Representatives candidates and support for presidential candidates. The variable for candidate support was treated as a repeated measure, as each participant rated the Democratic and Republican candidates in pairs (i.e., data was reshaped into long format so that each participant has two different rows of data for Democratic and Republican candidates). The candidate support variable as then predicted b participants ideology, party identification, perceived ideology of the corresponding candidate as well as gender, age, income, education, and survey year (with 1978 as baseline year for the analysis about support for House of Representatives candidates, and the baseline year was 1972 for support for U.S. presidential nominees), as covariates. The standard errors were clustered by survey year4.

Importantly, the interaction term for Participants ideolog Candidates (perceived) ideology (A), Participants part identification Candidates (perceived) ideology (B) Participants ideolog Candidates part (C) and Participants part identification Candidates part (D) were entered in the models. Like in other studies, Candidates ideolog × Candidates part × Participants ideology as well as Candidates ideolog × Candidates part × Participants part (and a term for

Candidates part Candidate ideolog) were included to test for potential three-way interactions.

The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 4a and Table 4b and the key interactions are visualized in Figure 3a-Figure 3d.

4 In a preliminary run, a parallel mixed effect model for the House of Representative candidates was estimated where participants were nested within the district, and according to the results, there is practically no variance (b=.001, S.E.<.001) for the constant by district. For the sake of parsimony and the ease of computing effect size, the simpler regression model is reported.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 25

Table 4a. Predicting Feeling toward House Candidate

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 26

Table 4b. Predicting Feeling toward Presidential Candidate

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 27

Figre 3a. Participants ideology on evaluation for the House of Representative candidates by candidates ideology

Figre 3b. Participants party identification on evaluation for the House of Representative candidates by candidates ideology

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 28

Figre 3c. Participants ideology on evaluation for presidential candidates by candidates Ideolog

Figre 3d. Participants party identification on evaluation for presidential candidates by candidates ideology

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 29

Discussion

Analysis related to support for House of Representatives candidates. Reviewing the results about the support for House of Representatives candidates: the terms for A and B are both significant, and they have relatively large effects when compared to that of C and D. In contrast, the term for C is not significant and that of D is significant in the model, thogh Ds effect is sbstantiall smaller than that of A and B. According to Figure 3a, participants smbolic conseratism is associated ith support for candidates that are perceived to be conservative but opposition to candidates that are perceived to be liberal, and this pattern does not differ based on the candidates part, as the term for Participants ideolog × Candidates ideolog Candidates part is not significant. The patterns are similar for the effects of participants part identification. Though the patterns described in the left panels and right panels in Figure 3b seem to be somewhat different, the term for Participants party × Candidates ideolog Candidates part is not significant, suggesting that these differences are not significant.

Analysis related to support for presidential candidates. The results about the support for presidential candidates are less similar to that of Study 1 and Study 2 when compared to the results about the support for House of Representatives candidates. The terms for A and D are significant, like that of

Study 1 and Study 2, but unlike them, that of B is only marginally significant. Unlike Study 1 and

Study 2, the term for C is significant. Reviewing Figure 3c, the effects that are related to participants symbolic ideology (A and C) are very similar to that of support for House of Representatives candidatestheir effects are not conditioned by candidates part affiliation, as the term for

Candidates ideolog Candidates part Participants ideolog is not significant. However, reviewing Figure 3d, the effect related to participants part identit is heail drien b the candidates part affiliationparticipants who are more identified with Republicans evaluate MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 30

Democratic candidates negatively but Republican candidates positively (also indicated by the significant term for Participants' party × Candidates ideolog Candidates part).

Comparisons of the two analyses. Comparing the results across the two sets of analyses, it seems that there are consistent and relatiel large effects of A among for matches. There is also some eidence for B, thogh its effect is more limited in the context of a presidential race. There is some evidence for the effect of C in the context of a presidential race, but it is absent from the support for the House of Representatives. Finall, there is a relatiel large effect of D, in support for presidential candidates (in fact it is the largest among the four types of matches), a pattern that is very different from results from Study 1, Study 2 and that of the House of Representatives. Overall, it seems that the main pattern that departs from that of Study 1 and Study 2 is that the party affiliation of the candidates (i.e., C and D) plays a much greater role in the case of presidential candidates when compared to House of Representative candidates and candidates for unspecified office. These comparisons will be discussed more in detail in the general discussions.

Limitation of the measure for candidates ideology. It should be noted that candidates ideology in this study is measured using perceived ideology, as opposed to actual ideology. A critic of this study may point out that the perceived ideology of a candidate may be shaped by the partisanship of the candidate, so the results for the matches that involve candidates ideology may instead be explained b candidates part. However, this is unlikely the case. If the perceived candidates ideology is merel a pro measre of candidates part affiliation, A and B would not have any predictive effects for support for candidates above and beyond C and D. In other words, if the effects of candidates ideolog are eplainable b candidates part, once C and D are entered in the model, the term for A and B shold not be significant. Nonetheless, as the reslts sho, A and B still are significant. These suggest that the effect of perceived ideology from candidates are not explained by their party affiliation. Another criticism to the use of perceived ideology is that MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 31 participants may have a motivated placement of their on ideolog or that of the candidates ideology: for instance, participants may place the ideology of their favorite candidate to be closer to their own ideology (e.g., Page & Jones 1979). This alternative explanation will be addressed in Study

4.

Study 4

Study 4 was conducted primarily to achieve two goals. The first goal, as discussed above, is to address an alternative explanation for results of Study 3. Though Study 1 and Study 2 are helpful to address this issue experimentally, the data are not nationally representative or collected in a

natral contet. Therefore, in this study, objective measure of candidates ideology, as opposed perceived ideology, will be used.

Furthermore, Study 3 suggests that candidates party affiliation (i.e., C and D) starts to play a more prominent role in citiens support for candidates as the context elevate from local context

(i.e., House of Representatives elections) to national context (i.e., presidential election). However, it is unclear if this effect is true for all candidates who are competing for the position of the president, or if it is unique at the stage when presidential nominees of the two major parties are competing.

Therefore, the second purpose of Study 4 is to triangulate the boundary condition for the effect of party identity match (D) and ideology-party cross-match (C) by testing their effects on presidential candidates who were competing for nominations from their own party.

Method

Study 4 uses nationally-representative data from American National Election 2016 Pilot Study.

The data for the study was collected in January 2016, which was a time when presidential candidates were still competing for nominations from their own parties. Participants responded to symbolic ideology and party identification questions about themselves and rated eight presidential candidates in

2016 on feeling thermometers similar to that of Study 3, and the candidates were Bernie Sanders, MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 32

Hillary Clinton, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz5.

The candidates ideology in this study uses the ideology scores tabulated by Crowdpac6 based on candidates public statements, voting records and campaign contributions including contributions to the candidate as well as contributions from the candidate. These scores ere recoded to rn from

0=most liberal to 1=most conservative (see Appendix C for the scores).

Results

Comparing four types of matches. Like in Study 3, the candidate support variable was treated as a repeated measure, since each participant was asked about their feelings toward each candidate in the survey. The candidate support variable as predicted b participants ideolog, part identification, and objectively measured ideology of the corresponding candidates, and party affiliation of the candidates. Participants gender, age, income, and education as well as indicators for each candidate were included as covariates. The indicators for Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Ben Carson, and Ted

Cruz were designated as omitted terms due to dependency7. The interaction terms included in this model are the same as that of Study 3, and they have the same meaning and lend themselves to similar interpretations when compared to their corresponding terms in Study 3. The results are summarized in Table 5.

5 Participants were also asked to rate Barack Obama, but his objective ideology was not tabulated by Crowdpac perhaps because he was not a presidential candidate in that year. 6 see https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidate_ratings_and_scorecards for details 7 The reason why omitted terms are needed for correct model specification is illustrated in the following example. In a linear regression model that predicts feelings for Trump, Sanders (two male candidates), Clinton, and Fiorina (two female candidates), indicators for Trump, Sanders, and Clinton are entered in the mode, with Fiorina as baseline. If the model also incldes a term for candidates gender, then one less indicator old be needed. This is becase the information of candidates gender combined ith information of hether the candidate is either one ot of any two candidates among Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, can reveal who the candidate is. Hence, the more terms that can stratify the identity of the candidates are included in a model, the less indicators should be included in the model for correct specification. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 33

Table 5. Study 4 Results.

Zeroing in on the effect of A and addressing the limitation of perceived ideology measure in Study 3. To specificall address the isse of motiated placement of candidates ideolog, the folloing analsis was conducted. First, linear regression models were estimated sing participants ideolog, party identification, gender, age, income, and education to predict feelings toward each candidate individually, and the coefficients for participants ideolog were taken from each model. In a different model, this set of coefficients were then used as dependent variables to be predicted by each of the candidates ideolog that were measured objectively. The coefficients can be found in

Appendix C. The result is significant, b=.94, S.E.=.08, p<.001, 95% CI=[.76, 1.13], R=.96 and MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 34 plotted in Figure 4a. The predictor remains significant if the variables for Democratic candidates

ere folded to accont for the role of candidates part affiliation (i.e., reverse-recoding the

Democratic candidates objectively measured ideology and reversing the signs for their predictors) b=1.19, S.E.=.32, p=.010, 95% CI=[.40, 1.97], R=.64, as shown in Figure 4b.

Figre 4a. Effect of candidates ideolog on the predictie effect of participants ideolog on candidate support.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 35

Figure 4b. Effect of candidates ideolog on the predictie effect of participants ideolog on candidate support (folded).

Discussion

The results of Study 4 for A, C and D but not B are similar to that of Study 1, Study 2 and the analysis related to candidates for House of Representatives in Study 3. As in the other studies, the term for A is significant and has a relatively large effect among the four types of matches.

Participants smbolic conseratism is associated with support for candidates that are perceived to be conservative, but it is associated with opposition to candidates that are perceived to be liberal.

This pattern seems to be attenuated for Republicans candidates, as the term for Participants ideology × Candidates ideolog Candidates part is significant and negative. However, these differences between candidates of different affiliations should be taken more cautiously. This is because the analysis includes only two Democratic candidates (i.e. Sanders and Clinton), and participants ealation of Sanders and Clinton ma disproportionately contribute to the significant MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 36 three way interaction. Furthermore, the effect size of the four interaction terms in this study is much smaller than that of the over ones. One possibility is that the candidate variable may have "crowded out" the model by explaining the vast majority of 26.03% of variances out of the 34.6% that is accounted for by the entire model.

Also like the studies mentioned above, the term for C is not significant and that of D is only marginally significant, suggesting that the role of ideology-party cross-match and party identity match play a very limited role in predicting peoples spport for the candidates. Reviewing these reslts ith that of Std 3, the effect related to candidates does not seem to be prominent for all candidates who are competing for the position of the presidentinstead, it seems that it is unique at the stage when presidential nominees of the two major parties are competing.

Unexpected effects for B. Though the term for B is significant, unlike all the other studies, the sign for B term is unexpectedly negative. Its literal meaning is that taking into consideration other types of matches, people who identify as Republican, as opposed Democrat, tend to evaluate conservative candidates negatively. Furthermore, the pattern is different between candidates of different party affiliation, as the term for Participants party × Candidates ideolog Candidates party is significant. Nonetheless, as discussed above, this three way interaction should also be interpreted cautiously due to the small number of Democratic candidates. One possible explanation for the unexpected sign of B is that this negative sign might be an artifact, such as a suppression effect. It might have happened in this study because a combination of a small number of target political candidates used in this study and a lack of ideological moderate candidates among them,

hich rendered candidates ideolog and candidates part highl correlated. To test the artifact interpretation, the predictive effects of party identity in the eight separate regressions mentioned above were reviewed (see Appendix C). The predictie effects of participants (Republican) identification are indeed related to support for conservative candidates positively, and vice versa for MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 37 liberal candidates. Therefore, it is very possible that the unexpected negative sign for B found in the main model is resulted from the suppression effect. Accounting for this suppression effect, the effect reflected by B should have been positive.

Finally, focusing on the effect of A and addressing the limitation of using perceived ideology in Std 3, this std shos that the predictie effect of citiens ideolog on spport of a candidate is moderated b the candidates objectiel measred ideolog, either modeled using the multiple matching perspective (i.e., including all possible interaction terms in the same model) or comparing coefficients of individual ideology term. Thus, the prominent effect of A found throughout the studies is unlikely due to motivated placement of candidates ideolog.

General Discussion

Though many past studies tested effects of political value (i.e., ideology) and identity on support for political candidates, little has compared their effects by considering them from the perspectives of citizens and the candidate simultaneously. Four types of matches were introduced using the multiple matching perspective. Hence, this paper contributes to the literature by uncovering nuanced roles of political ideology and party identity using a novel perspective, which shall be elaborated below.

Theoretical and methodological contributions, and implications for candidate support

In particular, reviewing the first row of Table 1b, ideological match (A) has the largest effect among all four types of matches except in the context of final stage of presidential election, in which case, its effect is only somewhat smaller than the most powerful type of match (i.e., D). Thus, its effect is relatively large, robst, and consistent across stdies. Theoreticall, it sggests that citiens political value plays a powerful effect in shaping their support for political candidates, as they heed to their own ideology as well as that of the political candidate, even after considering other possible roles of party identity. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 38

Furthermore, reviewing the first two rows of Table 1b, the results suggest that the moderating effect of candidates ideolog (A and B) is often more powerful than candidates part affiliation (C and D). Theoretically, these patterns suggest that most of the time, for most political candidates, a candidates ideolog can pla a more important role than the candidates part affiliation in determining what types of citizens they will appeal to. In other ords, candidates political standing matters to voters above and beyond (and in some cases, more than) which party candidates are affiliated with. Again, there is an exception that during the final stage of a presidential race, in which case the moderating role of the candidates part is a lot more prominent.

Finally, comparing the two types of cross-match effects (B and C) by reviewing the corresponding rows, results show that citizens party identity may guide them to support a candidate whose ideology is congruent with the party that citizens identify with (B). However, it is less so for the reverse of it (less evidence for C). This pattern is somewhat expected given that it does not make much sense to have a strong effect above and beyond other types of matches. Nonetheless, these reslts, combined ith the discssions aboe, sggest that citiens part identit can pla a more informed and sophisticated role than the sport fan ie of its effect. In contrast, it is nlikel that citizens use their ideology merely as a justification or rationalization of their political group loyalty8.

Reviewing the comparisons together, results suggest that when evaluating a political candidate, citiens can attne to their ales as ell as behae like sport fans, depending on the context. Nonetheless, overall, Studies 1 through 4 suggests that the effects related to ideology (either citiens or candidates) are somehat more prominent than the effects related to part affiliation

(i.e., compare A+B+C against B+C+D, though it is mathematically tantamount to comparing A against D). In the complex and nuanced social world, many people may rely on their social values and identity to form an attitude. Therefore, though many citizens may not be very ideologically

8 Though these studies cannot negate the possibility that these may still happen. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 39 sophisticated (see Kinder & Kalmoe, 2017), when accounting for all possible matching effects, the current studies suggest that in most cases, people rely on their political values more than their political identity to decide their support for a political candidate.

Methodologically, this paper also contributes to the literature by proposing the multiple matching perspective as an approach to investigate the effect of conceptually related predictors. As discussed in the introduction, the effects of party identity and political ideology are two variables that are often difficult to disentangle because they are not only conceptually and statistically related bt also nested in perceivers as well as the perceived. As such, many studies that have identified differences between Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives may suffer from the problem of omitted variable bias, and consequently, it was not clear how much the differences between Democrats and Republicans found in one study are explained by the differences between liberals and conservatives, or vice versa.

For example, Druckman, Peterson, and Slothuus (2013) showed that citiens spport for an issue is predominantly dependent on which political parties was said to support it or oppose it. The conventional interpretation is that party identity is the underlying mechanism that is responsible for the pattern. However, when considering their studies using the multiple matching perspective, it is possible that which party was said to support the policy provided an ideological cue for participants to make sense of how their issue stance should fit into their value systems9. Relatedly, when researchers attempt to determine the effect of part identit and ideolog on citiens spport on a particlar polic, it ma be orthhile to consider the part onership of the isse (i.e., hich

9 In a related vein, Lenz (2012) suggests that citizens may adopt issue positions from their preferred political leader over time, hich seems to be inconsistent ith the crrent stdies finding abot the role of ideolog. It is possible that during the course of political campaigns, candidates are able to frame and explain (novel) issue positions to match the electorates ideological dispositions (or pschological configrations that predispose ideolog) in order to help citiens to adopt the positions. Thus, the framework of Lenz (2012) is not necessarily in contradiction with the findings about ideology in the current paper. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 40 party advocates it) as well as the ideological framing (i.e., whether it is saliently positioned as something consistent with liberal or conservative values) in order to understand the role of ideology and party identity. Future research should further explore these intriguing questions using the multiple matching perspective.

Therefore, using the multiple matching perspective allows researchers to disentangle effects of related predictors that reside in perceivers as well as targets, helping arbitrate the predictors contributions with attenuated omitted variable bias. Researchers in the future are encouraged to consider using this approach to address research questions that may have similar challenges.

Why does ideology play a more important role?

As discussed above, the results overall suggest that ideology can play an important role after all, and to some extent, it plays a more powerful role than party identity. These results are consistent with recent findings that (in)egalitarian ideology seems to be a stronger predictor of extremisms on racial or racialized topics than racial identity (Bai, 2020). However, what is it that makes values so special relative to their group identity? One possibility is that citizens may find their values and beliefs more central to their self-concept and moral character than their group identity, at least in the political context. Though extended discussions on this topic may be narratively less related to the focus of this paper, a supplemental study was still conducted to help shed light on this question. The goal of this supplemental study is to invite further deliberation and investigations from researchers in the future, and hence these results are relegated to Appendix D for readers to peruse. Overall, the results suggest that citizens in general consider their symbolic ideology more reflective of their self- concepts and reflect more of their morality than their party identity. Thus, it is possible that ideology plays an overall prominent role because citizens find their political ideology more central to their self-concept and moral character than their party identity.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 41

Strengths, limitations, qualifications of claims, and future directions

The current studies rely on a variety of methods and datasets. While Studies 1 and 2 provide a good internal validity by using experimental methods, Studies 3 and 4 use nationally representative surveys, providing the results with external validity. Though candidates ideology measure in Study 3 relies on a subject measure of perceived candidate ideology, results from the remaining studies suggest that the strong effect of A is unlikely to be resulted from motivated placement of ideology discussed above. Nonetheless, the current studies entirely focus on the context of the United States, which is governed by a two-party system. It is unclear if the results may be similar in other political contexts (i.e., single-party system and multi-party system). Future research should consider examining the generalizability of these results under other political systems.

In Std 1 and Std 2, part identits effect on political candidates hose ideolog and part affiliation are incongrent (in particular, the liberal Republican candidates) seem to be somewhat muted. The pattern is also observed in Study 3 (in particular the analyses related to the

House of Representatives analyses). Though it is unclear these effects are merely artifactual (as these interactions patterns are not significantly different from corresponding effects on Democratic candidates), but if not, one possibility for this pattern is that a liberal Republican may appear to be less prototypical of Republican, as Republicans tend to be more ideological (see Grossmann &

Hopkins, 2015). Future studies should further investigate these patterns in greater details.

Stdies 3 sggests that citiens part identit begins to pla a more prominent role in presidential elections, and Study 4 reveals that this may only be the case in the final stage of the presidential election. What might account for these results? One possibility is that in the final stage, presidential nominees from each party are considered as individuals that are most representative of the will and the characters of the parties. Therefore, before that point, partisans would either have switched their party affiliation or detach from it because they do not like the candidate (or party), or MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 42 double down on their support for the candidate in order to win for their partisan in-group (or to make partisan out-group loss). Therefore, the effect of party identity may be particularly prominent at that stage. There may be other explanations for this pattern, but the data from the current studies cannot directly answer this question, so future researchers should consider investigating this further.

Finally, the following qualifications should be made for the claim of this paper. As mentioned in the introduction, many studies in political psychology have debated and compared the effect of ideology and party identity. Some have compellingly shown that ideology and party identity can shape each other over time (see the introduction section). This paper uses the multiple matching perspective to investigate the effect of party identity and political ideology on the effect of candidate support at a fixed time point specifically. Thus, these results cannot speak to the broader debate about the dynamic interactive relationship between ideology and party identity.

Conclusion

In short, many researchers have investigated the role of political values (in particular, ideology) and political identity (in particular, party identity). However, our understanding of their effects is incomplete without considering their effects from the side of the perceivers as well as targets and their interactions. This paper introduces a multiple matching perspective, which considers all possible interactions between ideology and party identity, and by using this approach, this paper uncovered many nuanced and complex roles of ideology and party identity.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 43

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brenswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (2019). The authoritarian

personality. Verso Books.

Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American

electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 175-187.

Alvarez, R. M. (1990). The puzzle of party identification: Dimensionality of an important

concept. American Politics Quarterly, 18(4), 476-491.

Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T., & Sterling, J. (2019). Neoliberal ideology and the justification

of inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and economic dimensions of ideology are

intertwined. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 49-88.

Barber, M., & Pope, J. C. (2019). Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in

America. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 38-54.

Bai, H., & Federico, C. M. (2020). Collectie eistential threat mediates White poplation declines

effect on defensive reactions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(3), 361-377.

Bai, H. (2020). Whites racial identit centralit and social dominance orientation are interactiel

associated with far‐right extremism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(2), 387-404.

Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political

behavior, 24(2), 117-150.

Bisgaard, M. (2015). Bias will find a way: Economic perceptions, attributions of blame, and

partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis. The Journal of Politics, 77(3), 849-860.

Blais, A., & Bodet, M. A. (2006). Does proportional representation foster closer congruence

between citizens and policy makers?. Comparative Political Studies, 39(10), 1243-1262.

Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a

scientific consensus message about climate change?. Group Processes & Intergroup MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 44

Relations, 21(3), 389-402.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality

and social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. The American Voter.

1960. New York: Wiley.

Carmines, E. G., McIver, J. P., & Stimson, J. A. (1987). Unrealized partisanship: A theory of

dealignment. The journal of Politics, 49(2), 376-400.

Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and

policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464-

477.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and

conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave

behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.

Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political

beliefs. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(5), 808.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Pblics. In Daid Apter, ed.,

Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.

Converse, P. E., & Pierce, R. (1986). Political representation in France. Harvard University Press.

Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-

identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 617-645.

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). On the precipice of a majorit-minorit America: Perceied

stats threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans political

ideology. Psychological science, 25(6), 1189-1197.

Dawes, C. T., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Partisanship, voting, and the dopamine D2 receptor gene. The MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 45

Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1157-1171.

Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Wiley.

Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public

opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79.

Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., Du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and

prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(1), 75.

Eastwick, P. W., Richeson, J. A., Son, D., & Finkel, E. J. (2009). Is love colorblind? Political

orientation and interracial romantic desire. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1258-

1268.

Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.

Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2015). American public opinion: Its origins, content and impact. Routledge.

Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion

and policy in the American states. Cambridge University Press.

Franklin, C. H., & Jackson, J. E. (1983). The dynamics of party identification. American Political Science

Review, 77(4), 957-973.

Fleury, C. J., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1993). Anchoring the French voter: Ideology versus party. The

Journal of Politics, 55(4), 1100-1109.

Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political

participation. The Journal of politics, 69(3), 813-827.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2010). The big five personality traits in

the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265-287.

Golder, M. and J. Stramski (2010). Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.

American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 90106.

Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Kittilson, M. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 46

value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 805-820.

Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and

the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.

Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136-

153.

Grossmann, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2015). Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats:

The asymmetry of American party politics. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 119.

Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 49(1), 129.

Haidt, J., & Hetherington, M. J. (2012). Look ho far ee come apart. The New York Times.

Highton, B., & Kam, C. D. (2011). The long-term dynamics of partisanship and issue

orientations. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 202-215.

Hohman, Z. P., Hogg, M. A., & Bligh, M. C. (2010). Identity and intergroup leadership:

Asymmetrical political and national identification in response to uncertainty. Self and

Identity, 9(2), 113-128.

Hui, I. (2013). Who is your preferred neighbor? Partisan residential preferences and neighborhood

satisfaction. American Politics Research, 41(6), 997-1021.

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on

polarization. Public opinion quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.

Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group

polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690-707.

Jacoby, W. G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science,

178-205.

Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American psychologist, 61(7), 651. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 47

Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and

elective affinities. Annual review of psychology, 60, 307-337.

Kalmoe, N. P. (2020). Uses and abuses of ideology in political psychology. Political Psychology.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes (Vol. 1).

Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Incorporated.

Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American

public. University of Chicago Press.

Knight, K. (2006). Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century. American

Political Science Review, 619-626.

Klofstad, C. A., McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013). The dating preferences of liberals and

conservatives. Political Behavior, 35(3), 519-538.

Lenz, G. S. (2013). Follow the leader?: how voters respond to politicians' policies and performance. University of

Chicago Press.

Lupu, N. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in

Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 49-64.

Lupton, R. N., Singh, S. P., & Thornton, J. R. (2015). The moderating impact of social networks on

the relationships among core values, partisanship, and candidate evaluations. Political

Psychology, 36(4), 399-414.

Luskin, R. C., McIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G. (1989). Issues and the Transmission of

Partisanship. American Journal of Political Science, 440-458.

Lyons, W., & Scheb, J. M. (1992). Ideology and candidate evaluation in the 1984 and 1988

presidential elections. The Journal of Politics, 54(2), 573-584.

MacDonald, S. E., & Rabinowitz, G. (1993). Ideology and candidate evaluation. Public Choice, 76(1-2),

59-78. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 48

Markus, G. B., & Converse, P. E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral

choice. The American Political Science Review, 1055-1070.

Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfll agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and

issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128-145.

Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political behavior, 15(2),

167-192.

Page, B. I., & Jones, C. C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the

vote. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1071-1089.

Peffley, M. A., & Hurwitz, J. (1985). A hierarchical model of attitude constraint. American Journal of

Political Science, 871-890.

Pierce, J. C. (1970). Party identification and the changing role of ideology in American

politics. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 25-42.

Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political

candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 472-496. DOI: 10.2307/2111381

Settle, J. E., Dawes, C. T., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). The heritability of partisan attachment. Political

Research Quarterly, 62(3), 601-613.

Schwartz, S. (2013, May). Value priorities and behavior: Applying. In The psychology of values: The

Ontario symposium (Vol. 8).

Stimson, J. A. (1975). Belief systems: Constraint, complexity, and the 1972 election. American Journal

of Political Science, 393-417.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social

Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.

Weisberg, H. F. (1980). A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification. Political

Behavior, 2(1), 33-60. MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 49

Appendix A

This appendix describes the materials used throughout the studies.

Study 1 Materials Manipulation of candidate profile

The party affiliation of the candidate is manipulated by including one of the following two statements as part of the profile

[Democratic condition] Name: Michael Maher Age: 55 Gender: Male Political Party Affiliation: Democratic Party

[Republican condition] Name: Michael Maher Age: 55 Gender: Male Political Party Affiliation: Republican Party

The ideology of the candidate is manipulated by including one of the following two statements as part of the profile

[liberal condition]

Candidate's Statement "All of us have the right to high-quality health care, regardless of our station in life. The Affordable Care Act guarantees this right, and it has greatly improved the well-being of the American people. Therefore, I will work to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act. I also believe that immigration is both good for our economy and for American culture. I believe we should continue to welcome new immigrants, and help undocumented immigrants living among us [sic.] become citizens. Finally, our current tax laws favor big corporations and the rich, while the average American feels the worst of the taxman's bite. I support a fairer tax system that benefits everyday people, rather than billionaires and corporate fat cats."

[conservative condition]

Candidate's Statement "All of us have the right to freedom from government interference in our health-care decisions. The Affordable Care Act strips away this right, and it has greatly damaged the well-being of the American people. Therefore, I will work to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I also believe that excessive immigration is bad for our economy and weakens the unity of American culture. I believe we should reduce current immigration levels, and deport undocumented immigrants currently living among us. Finally, our current tax laws take way too much out of the MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 50 average American's paycheck and hands it to government bureaucrats. I support a fairer tax system that cuts taxes for everyone, rather than giving more of our hard-earned money to big government."

Support for candidate The key outcome variable, support for candidate is measured using the following two items:

We would like to get your feelings toward this candidate. Please rate him using the feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward him. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 degrees mean that you don't feel favorable toward him and that you don't care too much for him. You would rate him at the 50 degree mark if you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward him. There is no right or wrong answer. (0=0 degree; 100=100 degree)

We would like to get the likelihood that you will vote for him. Rating of 0 means that there is a 0% of chance you will vote for him. Rating of 100 mean that you there is a 100% of chance you will vote for him. Rating of 50% means that you there is a half chance you will vote for him. There is no right or wrong answer. (0= -% of chance; 100=100% of chance)

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 51

Study 2 Materials Paricipans Ideolog We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. Here is a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Where would you place yourself on this scale? 1= Extremely liberal 2= Liberal 3= Slightly liberal 4= Moderate; middle of the road 5= Slightly conservative 6= Conservative 7= Extremely conservative

Paricipans Par Ideni Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what? Republican Democrat Independent Other Party

Based on participants responses to the qestion aboe, the ill be gien one of the folloing three questions.

(if Democrat is chosen) Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or a not very strong Democrat? Strong Democrat Not very strong Democrat

(if Republican is chosen) Would you call yourself a strong Republican or a not very strong Republican? Strong Republican Not very strong Republican

(if Independent or other party is chosen) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? Democratic Republican Neither

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 52

Manipulation of candidate profile In Study 2, the evaluation of the hypothetical candidate is measured using the following procedure. Participants read a hypothetical profile of a political candidate. The profile includes several pieces of information that are manipulated. The party affiliation is manipulated by including one of the two following text in the beginning of the profile.

Democrat condition Next, we would like to get your opinion on the following candidate who was nominated as the Democratic Party candidate. Please read the following statement from this candidate and respond to the following questions.

Republican condition Next, we would like to get your opinion on the following candidate who was nominated as the Republican Party candidate. Please read the following statement from this candidate and respond to the following questions.

Race and gender is manipulated by using one of the following four pictures as the profile picture:

Black male, a White male, a Black female, and a White female.

The ideology of the candidate is manipulated including one of the following two statements as part of the profile

Liberal condition Statement "All of us have the right to high-quality health care, regardless of our station in life. The Affordable Care Act guarantees this right, and it has greatly improved the well-being of the American people. Therefore, I will work to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act. I also believe that immigration is both good for our economy and for American culture. I believe we should continue to welcome new immigrants, and help undocumented immigrants living among us become citizens. Finally, our current tax laws favor big corporations and the rich, while the average American feels the worst of the taxman's bite. I support a fairer tax system that benefits everyday people, rather than billionaires and corporate fat cats."

Conservative condition Statement "All of us have the right to freedom from government interference in our health-care decisions. The Affordable Care Act strips away this right, and it has greatly damaged the well-being of the American people. Therefore, I will work to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I also believe that excessive immigration is bad for our economy and weakens the unity of American culture. I believe we should reduce current immigration levels, and deport undocumented immigrants currently living among us. Finally, our current tax laws take way too much out of the MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 53 average American's paycheck and hands it to government bureaucrats. I support a fairer tax system that cuts taxes for everyone, rather than giving more of our hard-earned money to big government."

The evaluation is measured with the following two items:

We would like to get your feelings toward this candidate. Please rate this candidate using the feeling thermometer that you used earlier10.

How likely do you think you will vote for this candidate? Rating of 0 means that there is a 0% of chance you will do so. Rating of 100 mean that you there is a 100% of chance, and rating of 50% means that you there is a half chance you will vote for this candidate. [sic.]

10 In the earlier part of the survey, participants were given the following instruction to rate various social groups and entities: Net, ed like to get or feelings toard some people and grops in the nes these das. Well gie o the name of a person or grop, and ed like you to rate that person using something we call the feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable toward the person or group. Ratings between 0 degrees and 50 degrees mean that you don't feel favorable toward the person or group and that you don't care too much for that person or group. You would rate the person or group at the 50 degree mark if you don't feel particularly favorable or unfavorable toward the person or group. If we come to a person or group whose name you don't recognize, you can decline to rate your feelings.

Please note that you must move the slider in order to record a response.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 54

Study 3 Materials In Study 3, evaluation of candidate is measured in somewhat different ways across different waves, as described below: 1968-1974: (1968,1972: As you know, there were many people mentioned this past year as possible candidates for President [1972: or Vice-President] by the political parties.) (1970: Several political leaders have already been mentioned as possible candidates for President in 1972.) (1968-1972: We would like to get your feelings toward some of these people.) (1974: Now I'd like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news these days.) I have here a card on which there is something that looks like a thermometer. We call it a "feeling thermometer" because it measures your feelings toward these people. (1968: You probably remember that we used something like this in our earlier interview with you.) Here's how it works. If you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward a person, then you should place him in the middle of the thermometer, at the 50 degree mark. If you have a warm feeling toward him or feel favorably toward him, you would give him a score somewhere between 50 degrees and 100 degrees. (1968-1970 only: depending on how warm your feeling is toward that person). On the other hand, if you don't feel very favorably toward a person--that is, if you don't care for him too much--then you would place him somewhere between 0 degrees and 50 degrees. Of course, if you don't know too much about a person, just tell me and we'll go on to the next name. 1976: As you know, many people were mentioned this year as possible candidates for president or vice-president by the political parties. We would like to get your feelings toward some of these people. I'll read the name of each person and I'd like you to rate that person with what we call a feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorably and warm toward the person, ratings between 0 and 50 degrees mean that you don't feel favorably towards the person and that you don't care too much for that person. If you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward a person you would rate them at 50 degrees. If we come to a person you don't know much about, just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. 1978-LATER: I'd like to get your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news these days (1990: have been in the news). I'll read the name of a person and I'd like you to rate that person using (1986-LATER: something we call) the feeling thermometer. Ratings between 50 and 100 (1986-LATER: degrees) mean that you feel favorably and warm toward the person; ratings between 0 and 50 degrees mean that you don't feel favorably toward the person and that you don't care too much for that person. (1986-LATER: You would rate the person at the 50 degree mark if you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward the person.) If we come to a person whose name you don't recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. (1978-1984: If you do recognize the name, but you don't feel particularly warm or cold toward the person, then you would rate the person at the 50 degree mark.)

[Repblican candidates name]

[Democratic candidates name] MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 55

Measure of Candidaes ideology

We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. Here is a 7-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Where would you place [the Candidate] on this scale?

1. Extremely liberal 2. Liberal 3. Slightly liberal 4. Moderate; middle of the road 5. Slightly conservative 6. Conservative 7. Extremely conservative

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 56

Appendix B Pilot study results for Study 2 (the full results are originally reported in Appendix B of citation anonymized for peer review) In particular, this procedure was pilot tested on a sample of 701 college students from a large Midwestern University. After participants in the pilot study review the profile, on a separate ebpage, the ere asked to recall the part affiliation of the candidate (What as the part affiliation of the candidate?; 0=Repblican, 1= Democrat) and to recall the candidates oerall ideological orientation1 (What as the oerall political ideological orientation of the candidate?; 1=Very liberal, 7=Very conservative). Overall, the manipulation was effective. There were 289 out of 339 in the Republican condition recalled the candidate as Republican correctly, and 257 out of 332 in the Democrat condition recalled the candidate as Democrat correctly, a pattern that is significantly different from chance level, (1) = 262.82, p<.001. Furthermore, participants in the liberal condition recall the candidate as significantly less conservative (M=2.36, SD=1.29; for reference, 2 as labeled as Liberal and 3 as labeled as Somehat liberal) than conseratie condition (M=5.38, SD=1.40; for reference, 5 as labeled as Somehat conseratie and 6 as labeled as Conseratie), t(661.67)=29.03, p<.001, 95% CI Mdiff=[2.82, 3.22], d=2.24.

Two additional analyses were conducted using the ideology condition, party condition, and their interaction to predict participants recall of the candidates ideolog (sing linear regression) and party (using logistic regression). These analyses were conducted to test participants recall of party identity was influenced by the ideological condition that they were assigned to, and vice versa for their recall of ideology. According to the results, both have occurred, thogh participants recall of ideology and party identity are primarily driven by the corresponding manipulations. For participants recall of the candidates ideolog, partial �=.58 for ideology manipulation and �=.07 for part identit maniplation. For the association beteen participants recall of the candidates party and the ideology condition, =.25; in comparison, the association beteen participants recall of the candidates part and the part condition, =.63. The ideology and party identity maniplations do not interact in determining participants recall of the candidates ideolog (p=.119), and the marginall interact in determining their recall of the candidates part (p=.051).

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 57

Appendix C

Table C1. Coefficients and input variables for analyses in Study 4.

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 58

Appendix D Supplemental Study about ideology and party identity and their relevance to self-concept and their moralization

The study was distributed by Survey Sampling International (SSI) to 3,552 US residents. In order to test hether ideolog or part identit is more central to ones self-concept, the following to qestions ere asked to respondents to times: How important is being a ____ to you? (1=Etremel important; 4=Not important at all) and To what extent do you think of yourself as being a ____? (1=A great deal; 4=Not at all). One time ____ as replaced ith the ideological label (i.e., liberal or conseratie) and the other time it as replaced ith the part identit label (i.e., Democrat or Repblican). Similarly, in order to test hether ideolog or part identit is more reflectie of ones moral character, the folloing to qestions ere asked to times: To what extent is your ____ political outlook deeply a reflection of your core moral beliefs and reflections? (1=Not at all; 7=Ver mch) and To what extent is your ____ political outlook deeply connected to your beliefs about fundamental questions of right and wrong? (1=Not at all Certain; 7=Ver Mch Certain [sic]) These responses were rescaled to run from 0 to 1 so that 1 indicates more moralization. In one ersion of the qestion, ____ as replaced ith an ideological label (i.e., liberal or conseratie) and in another ersion, it as replaced ith a part identit label (i.e., Democrat or Repblican). These responses were rescaled to run from 0 to 1 so that 1 indicates more self-centralit. Participants ere shon liberal ideological labels if the respond as Etremel liberal, Liberal or Slightl liberal to an earlier seen-point scale about their ideological self- placement (1=Extremely liberal, 7=Extremely conservative), and they would be given conservative labels if the responded as Slightl conseratie, Conseratie or Etremel conseratie. Similarly, participants were shown the Democratic label if the responded as Democrat and the ere shon Repblican label if the responded as Repblican to an earlier qestion that asked Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what? (the choices were Republican, Democrat, Independent, Other party). Results In order to test hether ideolog or part identit is more central to ones self-concept, only responses from participants whose ideology and party identity are congruent (i.e., liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans) were included for the main analysis. Results from analyses that inclded incongrent participants follos the analses belo. Self-concept In order to test the hpothesis that ideolog is more central to ones self-concept than party identity, the following analyses were conducted. A paired t-test shows that, for liberal Democrats, their responses to How important is being a liberal to you? (M=.68, SD=.23, 95%CI=[.67, .70]) is higher than their responses to How important is being a Democrat to you? (M=.63, SD=.29, 95% CI=[.60, .65]), t(932)=6.45, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.06. Similar results were found when conservative Republicans were asked about parallel questions about being a conservative (M=.71, SD=.24, 95% CI=[.69, .72]) versus a Republican (M=.60, SD=.28, 95% CI=[.58, .61]), t(958)=13.16, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.11 (see Importance in Figre 5). MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 59

Furthermore, the participants considered their ideology to be more important than their partisan identity. Liberal Democrats responses To what extent do you think of yourself as being a liberal (M=.72, SD=.27, 95%CI=[.71, .74]) is marginall higher than their responses to To what extent do you think of yourself as being a Democrat? (M=.71, SD=.30, 95% CI=[.69, .73]), t(932)=1.73, two-tailed, p=.084, Mdiff=.02. Similar results were found when conservative Republicans were asked about parallel questions about being a conservative (M=.75, SD=.27, 95% CI=[.73, .76]) versus a Republican (M=.67, SD=.30, 95% CI=[.65, .69]), t(962)=8.53, p<.001, Mdiff=.07 (see Self in Figre 5). Moralization In order to test the hypothesis that ideology is more moralized than party identity, similar t- tests were conducted on the corresponding items. A paired t-test shows that, for liberal Democrats, their responses to the moral belief qestion for liberals (M=.81, SD=.19, 95% CI=.79, .82)) are higher that of Democrat (M=.77, SD=.21, 95% CI=[.75, .78]), t(901)=5.59, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.04. Similarly, their responses to the right and rong qestion for liberals (M=.80, SD=.20, 95% CI=.78, .81)) are higher than that of Democrats (M=.76, SD=.22, 95% CI=[.74, .77]), t(876)=5.51, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.04. For conservative Republicans, their responses to the moral belief qestion for conseratie (M=.83, SD=.19, 95% CI=.82, .84)) are higher than that of Republican (M=.75, SD=.23, 95% CI=[.73, .76]), t(937)=12.79, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.09. Similarl, their responses to right and rong qestion for conseraties (M=.82, SD=.19, 95% CI=.81, .84)) are higher that of Republican (M=.76, SD=.23, 95% CI=[.74, .77]), t(917)=10.26, two- tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.07 (see right side of Figure 5 ).

MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 60

Figure 5 Note. The histograms are overlaid with a density plot that describes the distributions and error bars, which represent standard errors. The range of the ratings is [0,1]. An additional set of analyses parallel to the analyses above were also carried out to include incongrent participants to test hether ideolog or part identit is more central to ones self- concept and which one of them is more moralized. The results are described below, and overall the patterns are very similar. Self-concept MULTIPLE MATCHING, IDEOLOGY, AND PARTY IDENTITY 61

Responses to How important is being a liberal to you? (M=.67, SD=.25, 95%CI=[.66, .69]) is higher than responses to How important is being a Democrat to you? (M=.60, SD=.29, 95% CI=[.59, .62]), t(2836)=6.64, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.07. Similarly, responses for conseratie item (M=.69, SD=.25, 95% CI=[.67, .70]) is higher than the Repblican item (M=.56, SD=.29, 95% CI=[.55, .56]), t(2643)=11.85, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.12. Frthermore, responses to To what extent do you think of yourself as being a liberal (M=.71, SD=.27, 95%CI=[.70, .73]) are higher than their responses to To what extent do you think of yourself as being a Democrat? (M=.66, SD=.31, 95% CI=[.65, .68]), t(2837)=4.28, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.05. Similar results were found when conservative Republicans were asked about parallel questions about being a conservative (M=.72, SD=.27, 95% CI=[.71, .74]) versus being a Republican (M=.63, SD=.30, 95% CI=[.62, .65]), t(2652)=8.00, p<.001, Mdiff=.09. Moralization Responses to the moral belief qestion for liberals (M=.79, SD=.20, 95% CI=.78, .81)) is higher than that of Democrats (M=.73, SD=.23, 95% CI=[.72, .74]), t(2781)=8.05, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.07. Similarl, responses to the right and rong qestion for liberals (M=.79, SD=.20, 95% CI=.78, .80)) is higher than that of Democrats (M=.72, SD=.23, 95% CI=[.71, .73]), t(2727)=7.79, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.07. Responses to the moral belief qestion for conservatives (M=.81, SD=.20, 95% CI=.80, .82)) is higher than that of Republicans (M=.71, SD=.24, 95% CI=[.70, .72]), t(2599)=11.51, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.10. Similarly, responses to the right and rong qestion for conseraties (M=.80, SD=.20, 95% CI=.79, .82)) is higher than that of Republicans (M=.72, SD=.24, 95% CI=[.70, .73]), t(2564)=9.97, two-tailed, p<.001, Mdiff=.09. Discussion Overall, the results suggest that citizens in general consider their symbolic ideology more reflective of their self-concepts and reflect more of their morality than their party identity. Thus, ideology may play an overall more prominent role perhaps because citizens find their political ideology more central to their self-concept and moral character than their party identity.