In the past, support for environmental protection in the United States was relatively nonpartisan. That situation began to change in the late 1970s with partisanship playing an increasing role in attitudes and behavior regarding the environment. Despite the growing importance of environmental issues, Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, express greater skepticism about climate change, global warming, and environmentalism in general. We take advantage of a new method of estimation to gauge the degree of partisan and ideological variability in environmental concern across birth cohorts and time, while also testing the role of compositional and contextual causes of this variability. This contributes to our understanding of large-scale changes in environmental attitudes, and the degree to which partisan identification and political ideology is to blame for lack of environmental concern and efforts to promote a green agenda.

Studies of citizens' satisfaction with democracy have established a connection between satisfaction and how well those citizens' preferred parties perform in elections. Yet, the question remains whether 'winners' and 'losers' respond to the same system- and party-level factors when evaluating their political satisfaction. We build on extant literature to consider citizen satisfaction with democracy from the perspective of character valence. Using the Mannheim Eurobarometer trend file and content analysis-based data on parties' character valence, we find that both winners' and losers' satisfaction with the political system is affected by parties' character valence, but in differing (and somewhat surprising) ways. We find that winners respond to improvements in the character valence of opposition parties, whereas losers demonstrate greater concern with the valence of governing parties.

There is widespread evidence that individuals select information that supports their convictions and worldviews. This behavior yields the formation of echo chambers - environments in which an individual's own political beliefs are repeated and amplified and dissenting opinions are screened out. Recent research demonstrates that social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook or Twitter can facilitate this selection into homogenous networks. Using data from a representative nationwide online survey, we consider the degree to which respondents' social media networks resemble virtual echo chambers. We then analyze the effect of these social media echo chambers on satisfaction with democracy among Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. elections. Our findings reveal that virtual echo chambers boost democratic satisfaction among Republicans but they do not have an effect on system support by self-identified Democrats. Our paper therefore adds to a growing literature linking online behaviors to mass attitudes about politics.

In recent studies, scholars have highlighted factors that influence citizen satisfaction with democracy, with particular emphasis on the role played by the institutional features of political systems, and ideology. This article presents the first empirical study of whether changes in important party characteristics can affect individuals' satisfaction with democracy. Using a measure of parties' character-valence derived from content analysis of news reports, evidence is presented that when governing parties' images decline with respect to important valence-related attributes such as competence, unity and integrity, then citizen satisfaction with democracy similarly declines. However, this relationship is conditional on the performance of opposition parties. These findings are relevant to studies of regime support, political representation, democratic accountability and voter behaviour.

Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies. Edited by Petr Kopecky, Peter Mair, and Maria Spirova. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 434p. $110.00. - Election Promises, Party Behaviour, and Voter Perceptions. By Elin Naurin. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 208p. $100.00. - Volume 13 Issue 1

Previous empirical research has found evidence suggesting that the character-based valence attributes of parties, such as competence and integrity, can have notable effects of levels of electoral support (Clark, 2009; Mondak, 1995). A related strand of literature analyzes the importance of parties’ policy positions. In this study, we bring together research on valence and party dispersion to examine whether the ideological dispersion of parties in a party system mediates the electoral impact of valence. We perform empirical analyses covering nine Western European countries over the period 1976 to 2003, and test the hypothesis that when parties are more ideologically proximate to the mean voter position, character-based valence attributes will be of greater significance in determining parties’ electoral fortunes. Surprisingly, we find no support for this hypothesis. Instead, our analyses suggest that the more ideologically dispersed parties are, the more likely it is that character-based valence attributes will affect parties’ vote shares.

Do parties’ valence characteristics affect their policy strategies? The verdict of the spatial modeling literature on the positioning effects of valence is mixed on this point. Some spatial studies argue that valence-advantaged parties/candidates should moderate their policies, while others argue that they should radicalize their policies. Empirical cross-national work on this issue has been lacking. Using an original measure of valence and party positioning data compiled by the Comparative Manifesto Project, the period 1976–2003 is analyzed in this article for nine West European countries. The findings suggest that as parties’ character-based valence attributes worsen they tend tomoderatetheir Left–Right positions, and there is a notable time lag in parties’ responses to changes in their character-based valence attributes.

Ever since Stouffer began to measure political tolerance a half century ago, multiple studies have shown that a number of social, psychological, and political characteristics play a significant role in influencing whether individuals want to extend civil liberties to fringe groups. However, less is known about the stability of tolerance attitudes over an individual’s lifetime. To address this problem, our research draws on a national U.S. multiple-generation, four-wave panel study stretching from 1965 to 1997. The intuitive appeal of the approach used in this study is to advance theoretical accounts for variations in political intolerance irrespective of generational placement, life cycle, and differences in the political context. Specifically, the panel design encourages an effort to examine the relative impact of the social, political, and psychological predictors on intolerance over time and across the same individuals, and to assess the consequences of how changes in these determinants affect some of our most fundamental hypotheses about the origins of these attitudes. Keywords intolerance , life cycle , period , generational , trends

Empirical election studies conclude that party elites' images with respect to competence, integrity and party unity – attributes that we label character-based valence – affect their electoral support (Stone and Simas, 2010). We compile observations of media reports pertaining to governing party elites' character-based valence attributes, and we relate the content of these reports to mass support for the governing parties. We present pooled, time-series, analyses of party support and valence-related media reports in six European polities which suggest that these reports exert powerful electoral effects during election campaigns but little effect during off-election periods. This finding, which we label the Election Period Valence Effect, is consistent with previous work concluding that citizens are also more attentive to policy-based considerations and to national economic conditions around the time of elections. These findings have implications for political representation and for understanding election outcomes.

Recent empirical research has demonstrated that, in addition to policy positions, parties' electoral support is also affected by their character-based valence attributes such as competence, integrity, and unity. Thus far, however, research into the effects of parties' character-based valence attributes has not examined how such party attributes affect public opinion. The article examines whether changes in parties' character-based valence attributes motivate shifts in public opinion – specifically, whether public opinion shifts leftwards when right-wing parties' character-based valence attributes suffer relative to leftist parties, and vice versa. It presents the results of pooled time-series analyses of the relationship between parties' valence attributes and shifts in public opinion for nine European polities. The findings suggest that changes in parties' character-based valence attributes do motivate shifts in public opinion as hypothesised, and the effects are substantively large. These findings have implications for party strategies and for our understanding of the factors which shape public opinion.

Research examining valence dimensions of candidate evaluation in American congressional elections has found that characteristics such as “competence” and “integrity” have an impact on voter decision-making, and thus, electoral outcomes. Here, we examine whether such characteristics can also be used to help us understand aggregate voter behaviour and election outcomes in Western European elections. Building from Clark’s research on valence and election outcomes (Clark 2009), and using original data compiled from Keesing’s Record of World Events, we examine which character-based valence attributes have the greatest electoral impact – competence, integrity, or unity. The results of our analyses should be of interest to scholars of voter behaviour, electoral, and party competition.

Do events such as scandals, intra-party squabbling, and acts of perceived incompetence affect political parties' valence images, and thus, their electoral fortunes? If so, how great is their effect? Building upon a growing body of literature that explores the concept of valence, we develop a valid measure of valence based upon content analysis of Keesing's Record of World Events that scores parties along three valence dimensions – competence, integrity, and unity/division. The results of regression analyses designed to test this relationship for parties in nine Western European democracies are reported, and suggest that the answer to the first question posed above is yes. Specifically, evidence is found that events such as political scandals and party divisions cause parties to lose vote share, and that these effects are both statistically and substantively significant. These findings have important implications for understanding the dynamics of electoral competition, for parties' election strategies, and for political representation.

Do "niche" parties - such as Communist, Green, and extreme nationalist parties - adjust their policies in response to shifts in public opinion? Would such policy responsiveness enhance these parties' electoral support? We report the results of statistical analyses of the relationship between parties' policy positions, voters' policy preferences, and election outcomes in eight Western European democracies from 1976 to 1998 that suggest that the answer to both questions is no. Specifically, we find no evidence that niche parties responded to shifts in public opinion, while mainstream parties displayed consistent tendencies to respond to public opinion shifts. Furthermore, we find that in situations where niche parties moderated their policy positions they were systematically punished at the polls (a result consistent with the hypothesis that such parties represent extreme or noncentrist ideological clienteles), while mainstream parties did not pay similar electoral penalties. Our findings have important implications for political representation, for spatial models of elections, and for political parties' election strategies.

Do “niche” parties—such as Communist, Green, and extreme nationalist parties—adjust their policies in response to shifts in public opinion? Would such policy responsiveness enhance these parties' electoral support? We report the results of statistical analyses of the relationship between parties' policy positions, voters' policy preferences, and election outcomes in eight Western European democracies from 1976 to 1998 that suggest that the answer to both questions is no . Specifically, we find no evidence that niche parties responded to shifts in public opinion, while mainstream parties displayed consistent tendencies to respond to public opinion shifts. Furthermore, we find that in situations where niche parties moderated their policy positions they were systematically punished at the polls (a result consistent with the hypothesis that such parties represent extreme or noncentrist ideological clienteles), while mainstream parties did not pay similar electoral penalties. Our findings have important implications for political representation, for spatial models of elections, and for political parties' election strategies.

Previous research explains the evolution of parties' ideological positions in terms of decision rules that stress the uncertainty of the political environment. The authors extend this research by examining whether parties adjust their ideologies in response to two possible influences: shifts in public opinion, and past election results. Their empirical analyses, which are based on the Comparative Manifesto Project's codings of parties' post-war programmes in eight West European nations, suggest that parties respond to shifts in public opinion, but that these effects are only significant in situations where public opinion is clearly shifting away from the party's policy positions. By contrast, no evidence is found here that parties adjust their ideologies in response to past election results. These findings have important implications for parties' election strategies and for models of political representation.