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]. Masked Manuscript without Author Information 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 citizens’ ideology and political identity are moderated by a candidate’s ideology as well as the candidate’s party affiliation. Therefore, four types of matches (i.e., statistical moderations) are compared under this perspective: A. citizens’ ideology-candidates’ ideology 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’ ideology (A and B) is more powerful 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 citizens’ ideology 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 Contribute to Citizens’ Support 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 perceivers’ 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 citizens’ agreement with the party (Downs, 1957) or their evaluation 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 citizens’ 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 way, citizens’ party identity 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 citizen’s 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 one’s party takes a stance on an issue, partisans are motivated 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 people’s 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