Personality and Party Identification Types

RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

The narcissistic partisan? How narcissism and need for closure relate to positive and negative party identification in Germany

Sabrina J Mayer12

1 University of Duisburg-Essen 2 German Center for Integration and Migration Research

Version 2.0, June, 15, 2021, prepared for the EPSA General Conference

Abstract:

Usual studies of the underpinnings of partisan attachments only consider positive party identifications and the Big Five framework. However, negative party identification is an important understudied side of party identification that affects democratic dissatisfaction and political conflict. This article studies how narcissistic admiration and rivalry as well as need for closure affect negative party identification and partisanship types, such as being a negative, open, or closed partisan. I argue that different types of partisan attachments fulfill different psychological needs and the kind of attachments individuals show can thus be traced back to their personality features. Based on a novel online quota survey from Germany conducted in February and May 2021 (N= 1,454), I find narcissistic rivalry and need for closure to be central traits for different types of partisanship. Furthermore, negative partisans against a radical-right party show a different profile from partisans with other system parties.

Keywords: Individual differences, Negative partisanship, Party identification, Germany, Grandiose narcissism

1 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

1 Introduction Since the seminal work of Campbell and colleagues in the 1960s, positive party identification (PID) has become one of the most used concepts for analyzing political behavior (e.g., Huddy, Mason, & Aarøe, 2015; Johnston, 2006; Thomassen & Rosema, 2009). In contrast, negative party identification has received considerable less attention but gained traction in recent years. It was shown to mobilize electoral behaviour (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016; Bankert, 2020; Caruana, McGregor, & Stephenson, 2015; Maggiotto & Piereson, 1977; Mayer, 2017a; Medeiros & Noel, 2014; Michael McGregor, Caruana, & Stephenson, 2015; Richardson, 1991; Rose & Mishler, 1998) as well as increasing democratic dissatisfaction especially after “lost” elections (Ridge, 2020; Spoon & Kanthak, 2019) and political conflict (Abramowitz & Webster, 2018; Meléndez & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2019). Based on different types of partian attachments, Rose and Mishler (1998) provided a typology of partisans that allows to categorize four types: apartisan (no identifications), open (only positive), closed (both types) or negative. Ridge (2020) found especially those only holding negative party identifications to have the highest levels of dissatisfaction thus showing that the combinations of both kinds of partisanship matter.

Even though the party one identifies with is often already transmitted in primary socialization (e.g., Kroh & Selb, 2009; Zuckerman, Dasovic, & Fitzgerald, 2007), individual differences such as personality traits also matter as they affect the general kind of attachments we develop (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2012; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 2010). As personality shapes individual responses to stimuli and what they find appealing and not, we can certainly assume that individual differences also affect types of partisan attachments (Mondak, 2010). Previous studies relied on the widely used widely used Big Five framework (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1976) and showed for positive party identification that such an attachment fulfils different individual needs: Openness to new experiences as well as agreeableness were found to relate positively to the likelihood of identifying with a political party in different countries (Bakker, Hopmann, & Persson, 2015; Gerber et al., 2012). However, two important points remain understudies. So far, no study analysed the link between personality and negative party identification even though it is important to understand the general mechanisms of partisanship, regardless of parties’ ideology. Furthermore, previous works used the Big Five framework but did not take more recent coneptualizations of personality such as grandiose narcissism. Even though narcissism has been a stable feature in social psychological and personality research

2 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

(e.g. see for an overview Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Back et al., 2013), its contribution to political behavior has not been analysed much. First applications of narcissism showed its important role to predict political attitudes (e.g. Hatemi & Fazekas, 2018) as well as electoral behaviour (e.g. Mayer et al., 2020). The two different pathways of narcissism should thus affect the way voters perceive the world in terms of partisan attachments. Furthermore, the need for closure has been identified as another contributor for partisan attachments as a high need for closure fosters certainty and structure which both types of partisan attachments may provide (Luttig, 2018).

In this paper, I analyse how individual differences such as personality traits and needs affect the likelihood for different types of partisan attachments. I rely on the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (Back et al., 2013) as well as need for cognitive closure (NCC) (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). I argue that NCC drives positive as well as negative attachments, whereas narcissistic rivalry relates especially to negative partisanship as a way to maintain superiority. As populist radical-rightwing parties have many strong opposers/negative adherents (Meléndez & Kaltwasser, 2021), it is crucial to differentiate between system and anti-system parties in the analyses as we can suppose that negative partisanship with an anti-system party might fulfill a different function than with a system party. I use new data from an online survey with access quotes according to the German microcensus that was conducted in February 2021. Germany offers an ideal case because it is a moderate pluralistic party system. It has also had a long period of stability which is important for analyses of stable concepts such as partisanship, and contains parties from all major party families such as the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Socialists, Liberal Democrats, GREENS, as well as a populist right-wing party.

First, I discuss the theoretical framework, based on social identity theory, for the conceptualization of partisan attachements as well as the different personality frameworks I use. After deriving my hypotheses, I provide information on the Data and Measures I use. After showing the results, I discuss the implications of my research. I show that a need for differentiation such as narcissistic rivalry as well as a need for closure drive negative partisanship. Closed partisanship is most likely to occur when individuals are high in narcissistic rivalry and high in need for closure. Furthermore, partisans with/against a radical- right party show a different profile from partisans with other system parties.

3 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

2 Theoretical framework 2.1 Definitions of party identification as social identity Party identification1 is one of the most used concepts in electoral research (Thomassen & Rosema, 2009). The classic notion of party identification goes back to the “The Voter Decides” and “The American Voter” (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960). The theoretical foundations of party identification are based on reference-group theory in which the political party serves as the group to which the individual develops “[...] an identification, positive or negative, of some degree of intensity” (Campbell et al., 1960, p. 122). In this sense, party identification is used “to characterize the individual’s affective orientation” (Campbell et al., 1960, p. 121) towards a political party. Positive party identification is thus a long- standing affective attachment with one or several political parties. In the 1970s and 1980s, a revisionist critique focused on the presumed lack of stability of partisanship that is rather seen as a „running tally“ of on-going evaluations of political events (Fiorina, 1981; Popkin, Gorman, Phillips, & Smith, 1976). A third wave of party identification research replied be conceptualizing partisanship coherent within the social identity approach (Green, Palmquist, & Schickler, 2002; Greene, 1999; Kelly, 1989) that allows to explain deviations from the original stability assumption (e.g. Huddy, Bankert, & Davies, 2018). Building on these different schools of thought, the distinction of instrumental vs. expressive partisanship was used by several authors to name those diverging notions (e.g., Huddy et al., 2015; Huddy et al., 2018). Partisanship from an orthodox or social identity perspective is expressive as it leads to motivated reasoning, defending the party to maintain its status, and goes along with the function of party ID as a perceptual screen that filters information so it sheds positive light on the party and enhances outparty derogation (e.g., Huddy et al., 2018). It is thus an ingroup-based categorization (Leonardelli & Toh, 2015) that is part of an individual’s self-concept and thus affects their intergroup relations.

Negative party identification on the other hand has received considerably less interest so far. Even though part of the original definition of party identification, it was mentioned only in passing (Campbell et al., 1960, pp. 121–122): It was noted that identifications can be “negative” and it’s the “repelling quality” of the party that is central for the identification, without anything

1 In agreement with the common usage, party identification without further specification always refers to positive party identificaiton. 4 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES else concerning the concept or possible ways of measuring it. Consequently, the few existing studies have different notions of negative partisanship and its measurement (Bankert, 2020; Garry, 2007; Maggiotto & Piereson, 1977; Mayer, 2017a; Richardson, 1991; Ridge, 2020; Rose & Mishler, 1998; Spoon & Kanthak, 2019). Looking for a definition, negative party identification in an expressive sense centers on the original idea of repelling qualities of parties and is thus affective-based. Caruana et al. (2015) define accordingly negative party identification as a longstanding affective repulsion of a party that is more stable that simply disliking a party and causes motivated reasoning against this party. Even though negative party identifiation can also be perceived from an instrumental perspective and as such individuals may oppose parties based on issue-agenda. However, an expressive notion where negative partisanship is deeply rooted in social identities seems more likely as “negative partisanships tend to be related to strong emotions like collective threat and defense of political identities.“ (Meléndez & Kaltwasser, 2021, p. 4) As negative party identification is thus a concept on the identity level, conceptualizing and measuring it on the attitudinal level falls short and is insufficient: party identification, either positive or negative, should be conceptualized as long-standing attachments drawing on social identity theory, as group memberships and their emotional values that are part of the self-concept.

2.2 Partisanship types and pecularities of European multi-party systems Conceptually, earlier research diverged on the question if negative party identifications can exist independently of positive party identification (Maggiotto & Piereson, 1977) but there is mostly agreement nowadays that individuals may only hold negative identifications (Medeiros & Noel, 2014; Rose & Mishler, 1998). For example, Medeiros and Noel (2014) draw on works about negational identities (Zhong, Phillips, Leonardelli, & Galinsky, 2008) and propose that a negative identity relies mainly on a definition of the outgrup which is used to distinguish oneself from. Leonardelli and Toh (2015) add to this by discussing different forms of identities, in-, out- and intergroup categorizations. The types of categorization are depending on the categories people emphasise when they apply meta-contrast to the political sphere to maximize differences between their in- and outgroups (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Most people hold intergroup categorizations, clearly defined demarcations of the in-group (“us”) and out-group (“them”). However, both are also possible without the other as individuals’ for example may just use a clearly defined out-group for differentiation the social self. Which identifications an individual holds, is driven by two conflicting needs, a need for inclusion and a need for differentiation. Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991; Leonardelli & Toh, 2015) proposes that group size is an important factor and optimal distinctive groups (medium

5 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES sized and moderately inclusive) do meet both needs best. In case these groups are not available, members of small groups are supposed to have in-group only categorizations, as a small ingroup needs cooperation with others for fulfilling the need for inclusion whereas members of the majority will be more likely to hold intergroup categorizations for fulfilling the need for distinction.

Drawing on Rose and Mishler (1998) as well as Leonardelli and Toh (2015) we can develop a social identity based typology of partisan attachments which individuals commonly use to navigate the political space. Based on the features people emphasize when dealing with politics, we can classify them as one of four possible types. They can be closed partisans that rely on intergroup categorizations that have a clearly defined perception of “us”, the ingroup, and “them” one or more outgroups, thus combining negative and positive party identification. Furthermore, individuals can be open partisans and only hold ingroup categorizations where they strongly identify with a party but not against one; thus, when they think about politics there is no defined category of “them” which one opposes but rather a focus on the own group They can also be negative partisans that only have an outgroup-based categorization with a fixed perception of “them” as the political party which one opposes continuously. Last, individuals can of course be apartisan and neither positively nor negatively identify with a party.

However, not all party families do have the same appealing or repelling efect. As populist radical-right parties have become a main feature in most European party systems, their unique positions need to be considered for analyses of negative partisanship in European multi-party systems. PRR are reported as the party family that has the highest share of negative partisanship in Western Europe (Meléndez & Kaltwasser, 2021). Meléndez and Kaltwasser (2021) argue that PRR generate emotionally-charged debates about certain issues such as immigration that might also trigger ideological polarization between their own and other voters. Consequently, negative identifiers with PRR show high levels of democratic support as the negative partisanship in this case is not only about how one structures the political environment, but also a statement towards liberal democracy. Consequently, I argue that negative party identification towards PRR and towards other more mainstream parties is different and fulfils different functions.

2.3 Personality and partisan attachments Now I turn to the relationship between personality and party identifiation. In general, the connection between personality and partisanship can be analyzed from three different perspectives (see also Gerber et al., 2012). I focus on the relationship between personality and

6 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES the likelihood of partisan attachments in general, apart from ideological reasons (e.g. Bakker et al., 2015; Gerber et al., 2012). In general, I assume that partisan attachments fulfil different psychological needs for individuals. Thus individual differences such as personality traits and needs affect the form of attachments individuals hold – unrelated to the specific ideological direction of said attachments. Previous

Investigating the connection between personality and political opinions has a long history that dates back as early as the 1930s and 1940s (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). However, early personality concepts such as the authoritarian personality or dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960) were heavily criticized due to their vague conceptualizations and unclear measurements. After the introduction and establishment of the Big Five2 frame work that allows to concisely conceptualize singular personality traits, analyses of personality and politic became more and more popular. Personality is now conceptualized based on different general components, defined/understood as personality traits, that are relatively stable over time and contexts (Mondak, 2010). In this understanding, personality is based on five traits, openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (sometimes named as its other pole, emotional stability). Even though the Big Five-framework was introduced in the 1970s, its transmission into political science occurred with a considerable time lag. A new rise in publications started in the late 2000s when studies analysed the relation between Big Five personality traits, value orientations, party attachments, ideological positions, and vote choice (e.g. Ackermann & Ackermann, 2015; Bakker et al., 2015; Caprara, Schwartz, Capanna, Vecchione, & Barbaranelli, 2006; Gerber et al., 2012; Schoen & Schumann, 2007; Schoen & Steinbrecher, 2013). Previous studies on the relationship between individual differences and partisan attachments already showed that the underpinnings of positive party ID can be successfully explored with the Big Five framework (e.g. Bakker et al., 2015; Gerber et al., 2012). The current state of research is summed up quickly: Gerber et al. (2012, US) and Bakker et al. (2014, Germany) supposed that partisan attachments offer a sense of belonging in the political world as well as structure. Partly, findings confirm this: Extraversion and agreeableness for example relate to the likelihood to hold positive partisan attachments in the

2 The Big Five framework (Goldberg (1993)) and Five Factor model (FFM, Costa and McCrae (1976); Costa Jr and McCrae (1992)) are very similar and are often used interchangeably. Their major difference is the measurement, the FFM usually uses statements that are evaluated as „apply/does not apply“ whereas the Big-Five approach uses lexical items based on adjectives. However, established instruments such as the German BFI-10 often claim to embrace both concepts. 7 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

US and Germany. Looking at negative partisan affect, Webster (2018) reported a negative link with extraversion as well as a negative link between negative affect strength and agreeableness.

Even though studies from psychology show that the Big Five/FFM do not capture all parts of personality (e.g. Ashton et al., 2004; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) newer personality frameworks such as the HEXACO approach or the dark triad (psychopathy, machiavellianism, narcissism) rarely entered political science to date – and even if they did, they did not use the latest measurements (e.g. Hatemi & Fazekas, 2018). I argue however, that two newer frameworks, the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (Back et al., 2013) and the need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski, 2014; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) are especially useful for analysing the underpinnings of partisanship. The Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (Back et al., 2013) has been introduced recently and has been applied for the explanation of political attitudes and right-wing populist vote choice (Cichocka, Dhont, & Makwana, 2017; Mayer, Berning, & Johann, 2020). According to the NARC, grandiose narcissism, the subclinical variant of narcissism, consists conceptually of two underlying sub-dimensions that each provide a unique pathway to maintain the grandiose self: an agentic/adaptive path called narcissistic admiration that is characterized by self-promotion and relies on a strive for uniqueness, fantasises about grandiosity and charming behaviour as well as a maladjusted pathway, narcissistic rivalry, that is characterized by self-defence mechanisms and relies on devaluing others, through aggressive and hostile behaviour with often ends in social conflict (Back et al., 2013). Apart from personality traits, since the beginning, personality psychology has also considered individual needs which gained traction again in the 2000s. Especially the need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski, 2014; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) has been applied widely in political science. NFC combines a desire for order and structure, decisiveness and closed- mindedness and increases tendencies to hold the current status quo by favoring structure and stability (Kruglanski, 2014). NFC predicts thus right-wing authoritarianism and other right- wing attitudes (Altemeyer, 2004; Guay & Johnston, 2020; van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004). Individuals with high levels of NFC thus apply dogmatic styles of reasoning to the political world which leads to a mind-set that is dominated by inter-group categorizations of “us” and “them”. Social groups such as parties are thus providers of structure, both as positive or negative identifications. Previously, Luttig (2018) found need for closure to relate positively to partisan identity strength and in- and outparty affect as individuals with high need for closure desire certainty and structure which partisan identity and likes/dislikes provide.

8 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

So what makes individuals more prone for certain kinds of attachements? Concerning narcissism, I argue that narcissistic admiration increases the likelihood for being apartisan as individuals high on narcissistic admiration value individuality and dislike fixed groupings. Narcissistic rivalry, however, with its strive for devaluing others in connection with its tendency for aggressive behavior, should be positively related to negative party identification in particular and the likelihood of being a negative partisan. NFC reflects a low individual level of tolerance for uncertainty and missing structure. I thus assume that high levels of NFC positively relate to negative party ID strength – the higher the need for cognitive closure, the higher the perception of political friends and foes – and to having closed partisanship that matches best the need for closure for the political environment by providing in- and outparty categorizations.

With regard to PRR, which will be analysed separately, I would assume that narcissistic rivalry would negatively relate to negative party ID strength. Here negative party ID is not about the structure of the general party system but about a stance towards liberal democray.

Table 1: Overview of hypotheses

Strength Personality traits Main aspects negative PID Types party ID None Neg Closed Open Strive for + Narcissistic uniqueness,seeking social Admiration admiration, charmingness Narcissistic Strive for supremacy, + + Rivalry devaluate others Desire for certainty and + + Need for closure structure

3 Data and methods The data for this study was collected as part of a three-wave panel study on social cohesion from December 2020 to May 2021. The survey was fielded online using an Online Access Panel by respondi, with matched quotas for age, gender, and federal state. An oversampling for respondents that were born abroad or whose parents were born abroad was applied. Only participants that took part in all three waves and people born in Germany were used for the analyses (N = 1,454). Due to the non-representative nature of the data, even though quotas were applied, generalizations will be drawn with caution. 9 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

3.1 Measures 3.1.1 Dependent variable: Measuring partisan attachments Positive party identification was measured with the traditional German single item: “Many people in the Federal Republic lean toward a particular party for a long time, although they may occasionally vote for a different party. How about you?” Strength of party identification was measured on a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (“very weak”) to 5 (“very strong”). About 81 percent of respondents report a party identification with an average strength of 3.64 (SD = 0.80).

For the measurement of negative party identification, there are so far three different approaches of measurement. First, some authors (e.g. Maggiotto & Piereson, 1977; Richardson, 1991) measure it as negative affective evaluations of a party. Second, others operationalize it as a negative behavioural attitude such as the intention to never vote for a party (e.g. Medeiros & Noel, 2014; Rose & Mishler, 1998). Some also employ a mix of the first and second approach, and combine the so-called affective and behavioral facet (Mayer, 2017a; Ridge, 2020). However, in the context of positive party identification, evaluations are judged as being too short-term to properly represent a long-standing identification (e.g. Johnston, 2006). Furthermore, using behavioral intentions contradicts the original idea of Campbell et al. (1960) for partisanship being conceptually different from vote choice and introduces a tautological element to the concept. This means that negative party evaluations and behavioral intentions might be used in case no other indicators are available, but in general, they are insufficient for analyzing negative partisanship thoroughly. A third approach thus looks at new ways to measure the concept based on social identity theory (Bankert, 2020; Garry, 2007; Mayer, 2017b). Bankert (2020) uses an rephrased social identity scale by Mael and Tetrick (1992) with eigth items for her analysis in the US whose applicability for multi-party systems seems problematic, as this would mean that respondents would have to answer eight questions for every party. Garry (2007) studies the Northern Irish multi-party system and operationalizes negative party identification with two items, if one thinks of themselves as a supporter or being opposed to a party, as well as if one feels close to or distant from a party. Based on this study, Mayer (2017b) proposes and validates a single item measure that focuses on the “us” vs. “them” distinction in combination with emotional significance. Respondents are asked if they perceive adherents of a party as political opponents when they talk to each other. This item is assumed to capture to process of outgroup categorization while still being able to be used for more than one party in multi-party systems: “If somebody reveals that they are an adherent of [this party], I usually see them as a political opponent.” This was asked of all six major parties (Christian 10 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Democrats CDU/CSU, Social Democrats, Free Democrats, Left Party, Greens and Alternative for Germany) on a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (“do not agree at all”) to 5 (“very strongly agree”).

3.1.2 Types of party identifiers For the analyses about partisan types, negative party identification was coded in a binary way (yes/no) thus losing information. I count every individual as a negative identifier with a party that has a value of 4 or higher on the opponent question. These operationalizations allow for multiple negative party identifications but only for one positive party identification as it has been done before (e.g. Meléndez & Kaltwasser, 2021). This allows respondents to identify negatively with up to six parties. The resulting distributions are displayed in Figure 1. The combined measure (lower left panel) shows that about 12 percent of respondents do not have a negative party identification with a mode of 1 closely followed by 2. The new measure shows a similar distribution at the tail, but has more respondents with only one negative party identification (36 percent) than with 2 or more.

Figure 1: Histograms of numbers of negative party identifications by operationalization.

NPID (aff) NPID (behav) 40

NPID (combined) NPID (opponent)

Percent 40

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Number of different NPID

Concerning these negative party identifications, Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. shows the distribution by party. We see that more than 63 percent of the sample agree that adherents of the AfD are political opponents whereas this number is considerably lower for all other parties, thus adding evidence to the thought that negative party identification with the AfD might be triggered by different or additional factors.

11 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Figure 2: Different types of negative party identification

Christian Democrats (CDU) Social Democrats (SPD) Greens 60

Liberal Democrats (FDP) Left party Alternative for Germany (AfD)

Percent 60

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Distribution of NPID (opponent) by party

For analyses of partisanship types, a typology consisting of four different types according to Rose and Mishler (1998) was coded. Respondents where coded as apartisan when they did not identify with a party nor had a negative party identification, as open partisans when they only identified with a party but had no negative identification against one or more parties, negative partisans when they only hold negative party identifications, and closed partisans when they have both positive and negative identifications. This typology was coded twice (1) excluding negative partisans towards the AfD, and (2) only including negative partisans towards the AfD. Figure 3 shows that the number of negative partisans (compared to apartisans) as well as closed partisans (compared to open partisans) rises considerable when negative party ID for the AfD is considered.

12 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Figure 3: Distribution of PID types without NPID AfD and only with NPID AfD

Without NPID towards the AfD Only with NPID towards the AfD

100

Percent

Closed Partisan Open Partisan Negative Partisan Apartisan

3.1.3 Independent and control variables To measure narcissism, I rely on a validated short scale of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ, Back et al., 2013) that measures each dimension with three items such as “I earned being viewed as a great personality” for narcissistic admiration and “I want my opponents to fail” and “Most people are losers” for narcissistic rivalry (e.g., Paulhus et al., 2004). The answer options ranged from 1 (does not apply at all) to 6 (fully applies). NFC was measured with a short scale that uses one item each for the five dimensions (similar to Rinke, 2019: https://osf.io/sc76m), such as “I dislike unpredictable situations“.

In addition, to show that the results hold true in addition to traditional personality frameworks, I control for the Big Five personality traits in every analysis. I used the German Big Five Inventory (BFI-10), a validated German short scale (Rammstedt, Kemper, Klein, Beierlein, & Kovaleva, 2017). As controls, gender, origin (East/West), educational levels, and age were included to control for primary socialization and social group belongings (e.g. Gerber et al., 2012; Schumann & Schoen, 2007).

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for all independent and controll variables

Construct Min Max Mean SD

13 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Narcissistic Admiration 1 6 2.73 1.16 Narcissistic Rivalry 1 6 2.19 1.03 Need for Closure 1 5 3.45 0.71

Big Five: Openness 1 5 3.41 0.97 Big Five: Conscientiousness 1 5 3.85 0.80 Big Five: Extraversion 1 5 3.06 1.02 Big Five: Agreeableness 1 5 3.20 0.78 Big Five: Neuroticism 1 5 2.53 0.96 Male 0 1 0.58 East 0 1 0.14 Education 1 3 2.36 0.73 Age 18 74 47.92 14.02

3.2 Methods A pre-analysis plan was uploaded on OSF. For the analyses of negative party ID strength, the data was transformed into long format, meaning that the unit for analysis is no longer the respondent, but the respondent’s negative identification strength with a single party (see also van der Eijk, van der Brug, Kroh, & Franklin, 2006). This stacked data format allows to analyse the general patterns between personality and negative party identification over all parties and is often used for analyses of multi-party systems (Nasr, 2020; Oskarson, Oscarsson, & Boije, 2016). As now voter-party dyads are the unit of interest, the stacked data format increases the sample size by the factor six, it is thus important to account for clustering on the level of the individuals (Beck & Katz, 1995). Hence, I estimate multi-level linear regression models with random intercepts and robust standard errors, with party*respondents as 1st level and respondents as 2nd level units. Furthermore, dummy variables for the differents parties are included which is equal to party fixed-effects. For analyses of partisanship types, I use multinomial logistic regressions with robust standard errors. All variables are rescaled to 0-1 to allow comparisons within and between models. I calculate average marginal effects with the other variables as for the logistic regressions.

4 Results First, I analyze how individual differences relate to negative party identification strength. The results for the main variables of interest are displayed in Figure 4. For negative party ID strength with established parties, narcissistic rivalry shows the strongest relation to negative party ID strength: Those high on narcissistic rivalry have also stronger negative party identifications (total effect: 1.2 scale points). This shows that those striving for supremacy by aggressive behaviour and devaluation of others, are also more likely to perceive adherents of other parties

14 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES as political opponents, thus transferring individual differences into a polarized perception of the political sphere. Contrary, narcissistic rivalry is negatively related to negative party ID with the AfD. This means that individuals low on narcissistic rivalry in particular view adherents of the AfD as political opponents (total effect: 0.8 scale points). These converging directions of the relationship of narcissistic rivalry with negative party ID can be considered as first evidence that negative party ID towards an anti-system party may mean something different, namely a stance on the support for liberal democracy, as negative party ID towards other parties. Furthermore, narcissistic rivalry, in comparison to other traits, has a very large relationship with negative party ID strength. A high need for cognitive closure relates positively to negative party ID strength, both for NPID with the AfD and all other parties. However, this relationship only reaches conventional levels of statistical significance for negative party ID with established parties.

Figure 4: Coefficient plot for main variables of interest, unstandardized estimates

Personality Traits and Needs Narcissistic Admiration Narcissistic Rivalry Need for Closure

Big Five Controls Big5: Openness Big5: Conscientiousness Big5: Extraversion Big5: Agreeableness Big5: Neuroticism

Other Controls Age Education: middle Education: high Gender: male NPID strength (without AfD) NPID strength (only AfD) East Germany

-1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5

Note. N = 6,485 for NPID without AfD and 1,307 for only AfD;. All variables rescaled to 0 -1 range, multi- level OLS regressions estimated with respondents as level-2-units including fixed-effects for parties for NPID strength without AfD, OLS regression for NPID strength only AfD, both with cluster robust standard errors. Coefficients are displayed with the 95% CI.

15 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

In a second step, I look at party identification types (see Figure 5). Narcissistic admiration relates to a higher likelihood of being a closed than only a negative partisan, however this relationship is not significant. Contrary to expectations, I do not find a higher likelihood of those high on narcissistic admiration for being apartisan. Including only negative party ID with established parties, those high on narcissistic rivalry rather have a closed partisanship with both negative and positive PID than only a positive PID (a difference of more than 60 percentage points). They also more likely negatively identify against a party than positively identify with one, but this relationship is not statistically significant. High levels of NFC make it more likely that an indiviual is a closed partisan that structures the environment into in- and out-groups than being a negative partisan (20 percentage points different) or a closed partisan (60 percentage points difference). Similar results can be observed from Table 3, columns 2-4 – NFC is significantly related to being a closed partisan, compared to an open or negative one. This shows that individuals with high need for cognitive closure tend towards having a full-fledged intergroup categorization.

Contrary, when only looking at partisan types with negative party ID towards the AfD (Table 3, columns 5-8), those high on narcissistic rivalry rather have an open partisanship than a closed one. Furthermore, there are not statistically significant differences between the four identification types and need for closure (Figure 6), showing that the structuring of the political sphere, that we could observe for the other parties, is not happening when only negative party ID with the AfD is taken into account.

16 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Figure 5: Coefficient plot for multi-nomial logit regression, including NPID with established parties, AME

Narcissistic Admiration

Narcissistic Rivalry

Need for Closure Apartisan Negative Open Closed

-.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6

Figure 6: Coefficient plot for multi-nomial logit regression, including NPID with the AfD, AME

Narcissistic Admiration

Narcissistic Rivalry

Need for Closure Apartisan Negative Open Closed

-.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6

17 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Table 3: Logistic coefficients by partisanship type, multinomial logistic regression

All others Only AfD Neg vs. Neg vs. Open vs. Neg vs. Neg vs. Open vs. open closed closed open closed closed (=ref) partisans partisans (=ref) partisans partisans partisans partisans Narcissistic Admiration 0.10 -0.34 -0.44 0.08 0.34 0.26 (0.51) (0.49) (0.32) (0.49) (0.44) (0.34) Narcissistic Rivalry 0.56 -0.48 -1.04** -1.83** -0.73 1.10** (0.61) (0.58) (0.39) (0.59) (0.54) (0.39) Need for Closure 1.34* -0.35 -1.69*** 0.65 0.18 -0.47 (0.61) (0.60) (0.39) (0.59) (0.53) (0.41) Age -0.03*** -0.03*** -0.00 -0.01 -0.03*** -0.02*** (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Education (ref: low) Education: medium 0.37 0.28 -0.10 0.45 0.57* 0.13 (0.31) (0.30) (0.19) (0.31) (0.29) (0.20) Education: high -0.40 -0.43 -0.03 0.37 -0.08 -0.45* (0.32) (0.31) (0.19) (0.32) (0.29) (0.20) Gender: male -0.24 -0.75*** -0.51*** -1.02*** -0.63*** 0.39** (0.20) (0.20) (0.13) (0.20) (0.18) (0.15) Origin: East -0.34 -0.05 0.30 -0.47 -0.01 0.46** (0.29) (0.29) (0.17) (0.27) (0.26) (0.18) Constant -0.13 1.34 1.47** 0.60 0.18 -0.41 (0.87) (0.86) (0.57) (0.85) (0.76) (0.61) N 1454 1454 Nagelkerke’s R² 0.05 0.05 AIC BIC 3392 3227

5 Conclusion This article intends to add to the literature on the relationship of individual differences with negative party identification strength and different types of partisan attachments. Previous studies did only analyze positive party identification and did not take negative party identification into account. Employing a novel measure that conceptualizes negative party identification within the social identity framework as the stable perception of party adherents as political opponents, I show that considerable parts of the population, more than 80 %, in Germany have at least one negative party identification. A lot of these negative PID run against the AfD, a populist radical-right party that is currently not considered for coalitions by the other parties. For analyses of individual differences, I employ the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept, as well as the Need for Closure, and control for the Big Five personality traits.

I found a diverging relationship for narcissistic rivalry and negative party ID strength towrds established parties and the AfD: Individuals with high narcissistic rivalry are more likely to perceive adherents of other parties as political opponents (total effect: 1.2 scale points) as such 18 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES a friend-foe perception of the political world relates to their strive for supremacy by devaluing others. However, narcissistic rivalry does relate negatively to perceptions of the AfD as political opponent – here those that do not perceive politics in an aggressive way do classify the AfD as opponent. Need for closure, on the other hand, shows a similar relationship for negative PID no mattter which party, and increases NPID. However, this positive relation is only statistically significant for NPId with established parties

Furthermore, narcissistic rivalry also relates to partisanship types: It specifically increases the likelihood of having a closed partisanship compared to an open or negative one. Similarly, high need for closure rather differentiates between those having closed vs. open and negative vs. open partisanship – the higher the levels of narcissistic rivalry the less likely it is that indivuals are open partisans.

The overall finding is that individual differences should not be disregarded, as understanding the general patterns between personality and partisanship can help us to understand better why some people have certain partisan attachments and others don’t – irregardless of primary socialization and social group belongings. Furthermore, these results highlight that narcissistic rivalry and need for closure relate both to the more complex and dangerous kind of partisanship that fosters societal conflict – negative partisanship. The findings of the article add to the growing literature that highlights the importance of narcissism for political orientations and give new insights into the harmful outcomes of narcissistic rivalry – it drives perceptions of the political sphere with clearly defined in- and outgroups that are harder to overcome than only open partisanship with its definition of the ingroup. Especially in multi-party systems such as Germany, many clearly defined closed partisans can be problematic due to their reduced flexibility when changing majorities drive the need for new coalitions, also across ideological camps, that might be opposed by negative as well as closed partisans.

Nevertheless, the study’s data was only cross-sectional and collected based on an online survey with access quotes, thus biasing the results and make it hard to draw general conclusions. The present analysis was constrained by other data limitations: it not only covers one point in time but also only one country, Germany. It might be possible that relationships are entirely different in other countries. Furthermore, the explanatory power of the models is very low which was to be expected as partisan attachments are causally far away from personality traits. However, even though party identity is part of the social identity and thus closer to personality than vote choice for example, there might be other intermitted variables that have been omitted.

19 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Despite these limitations, the results of this study provide evidence to show (a) the need for more analyses of personality and political orientations and (b) the importance to also include negative party ID for a more encompassing picture.

20 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

6 References Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001 Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. W. (2018). Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans. Political Psychology, 39, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12479 Ackermann, K., & Ackermann, M. (2015). The Big Five in Context: Personality, Diversity and Attitudes toward Equal Opportunities for Immigrants in Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review, 21(3), 396–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12170 Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers. Altemeyer, B. (2004). The other "authoritarian personality". Key readings in social psychology. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-4 Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., Vries, R. E. de, Di Blas, L., . . . Raad, B. de (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356 Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431 Bakker, B. N., Hopmann, D. N., & Persson, M. (2015). Personality traits and party identification over time. European Journal of Political Research, 54(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12070 Bankert, A. (2020). Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09599- 1 Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979 Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr. 21 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x Caruana, N. J., McGregor, R. M., & Stephenson, L. B. (2015). The Power of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914000882 Cichocka, A., Dhont, K., & Makwana, A. P. (2017). On Self-Love and Outgroup Hate: Opposite Effects of Narcissism on Prejudice via Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. European Journal of Personality, 31(4), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2114 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age Differences in Personality Structure: A Cluster Analytic Approach. Journal of Gerontology, 31(5), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/31.5.564 Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press. Garry, J. (2007). Making ‘party identification’ more versatile: Operationalising the concept for the multiparty setting. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.07.003 Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Personality and the Strength and Direction of Partisan Identification. Political Behavior, 34(4), 653–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9178-5 Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale ISPS series. New Haven, Conn, London: Yale University Press. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00150 Guay, B., & Johnston, C. (2020). Ideological asymmetries and the determinants of politically motivated reasoning. American Journal of Political Science, 1–60.

22 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Hatemi, P. K., & Fazekas, Z. (2018). Narcissism and Political Orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 873–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12380 Huddy, L., Bankert, A., & Davies, C. (2018). Expressive Versus Instrumental Partisanship in Multiparty European Systems. Political Psychology, 39, 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12482 Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43655021 Johnston, R. (2006). PARTY IDENTIFICATION: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences? Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.062404.170523 Kelly, C. (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00866.x Kroh, M., & Selb, P. (2009). Inheritance and the Dynamics of Party Identification. Political Behavior, 31(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9084-2 Kruglanski, A. W. (2014). The Psychology of Closed Mindedness (1st edition). New York: Psychology Press. Leonardelli, G. J., & Toh, S. M. (2015). Social Categorization in Intergroup Contexts: Three Kinds of Self-Categorization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(2), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12150 Luttig, M. D. (2018). The “Prejudiced Personality” and the Origins of Partisan Strength, Affective Polarization, and Partisan Sorting. Political Psychology, 39, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12484 Maggiotto, M. A., & Piereson, J. E. (1977). Partisan Identification and Electoral Choice: The Hostility Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 745–767. Mayer, S. J., Berning, C. C., & Johann, D. (2020). The Two Dimensions of Narcissistic Personality and Support for the Radical Right: The Role of Right–Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and Anti–Immigrant Sentiment. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2228 Mayer, S. J. (2017a). How negative partisanship affects voting behavior in Europe: Evidence from an analysis of 17 European multi-party systems with proportional voting. Research & Politics, 4(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168016686636

23 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Mayer, S. J. (2017b). Die Parteiidentifikation: Eine Konstruktvalidierung neuer Maße auf Basis des Ansatzes sozialer Identität. Dissertation. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15672-5 Medeiros, M., & Noel, A. (2014). The Forgotten Side of Partisanship: Negative Party Identification in Four Anglo-American Democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(7), 1022–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013488560 Meléndez, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2021). Negative partisanship towards the populist radical right and democratic resilience in Western Europe. Democratization, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1883002 Meléndez, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2019). Political identities: The missing link in the study of populism. Party Politics, 25(4), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817741287 Michael McGregor, R., Caruana, N. J., & Stephenson, L. B. (2015). Negative Partisanship in a Multi-party System: The Case of Canada. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 25(3), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.997239 Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761515 Nasr, M. (2020). Voter perceptions of parties’ left–right positions: The role of party strategies. Electoral Studies, 68, 102239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102239 Oskarson, M., Oscarsson, H., & Boije, E. (2016). Consideration and Choice: Analyzing Party Choice in the Swedish European Election 2014. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39(3), 242– 263. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12065 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 Popkin, S., Gorman, J. W., Phillips, C., & Smith, J. A. (1976). Comment: What Have You Done for Me Lately? Toward An Investment Theory of Voting. The American Political Science Review, 70(3), 779–805. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959867 Richardson, B. M. (1991). European Party Loyalties Revisited. American Political Science Review, 85(3), 751–775. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963849 Ridge, H. M. (2020). Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09658- 7 24 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. Oxford, England:: Basic Books. Rose, R., & Mishler, W. (1998). Negative and positive party identification in post-Communist countries. Electoral Studies, 17(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261- 3794(98)00016-X Schoen, H., & Schumann, S. (2007). Personality Traits, Partisan Attitudes, and Voting Behavior. Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology, 28(4), 471–498. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447059 Schoen, H., & Steinbrecher, M. (2013). Beyond Total Effects: Exploring the Interplay of Personality and Attitudes in Affecting Turnout in the 2009 German Federal Election. Political Psychology, 34(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12031 Spoon, J.-J., & Kanthak, K. (2019). “He’s not my prime minister!”: negative party identification and satisfaction with democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 29(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1666271 Thomassen, J., & Rosema, M. (2009). Party identification revisited. In J. Bartle & P. Bellucci (Eds.), Political parties and partisanship: Social identity and individual attitudes (pp. 42– 59). London: Routledge. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (2010). Self and Collective: Cognition and Social Context: Zuerst veröffentlicht 1994. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology. Rediscovering social identity (pp. 287–300). New York: Psychology Press. Van der Eijk, C., van der Brug, W., Kroh, M., & Franklin, M. (2006). Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies, 25(3), 424–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2005.06.012 Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 824–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264333 Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049

25 RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALITY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION TYPES

Webster, S. W. (2018). It’s Personal: The Big Five Personality Traits and Negative Partisan Affect in Polarized U.S. Politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218756925 Zhong, C.-B., Phillips, K. W., Leonardelli, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Negational categorization and intergroup behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315457 Zuckerman, A. S., Dasovic, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Partisan Families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167390