Prepared for presentation at the APSA Conference Group on Taiwan Studies (CGOTS) Annual Meeting, September 16th , 2022.
Karl Ho | Cal Clark | Alexander C. Tan |
University of Texas at Dallas | Auburn University | University of Canterbury & National Chengchi University |
Literature:
Michael Kang (Boston College Law Review 2020):
two cohesive and hostile camps
voter animosity
ideologically polarized
[the other party is] “so misguided that it threatens the nation’s well-being”
the out-party surpasses racial prejudice
[one camp is] fearful of the other side
antagonistic
internally unified teams with clear, contrary positions
rig the rules of the game in their favor and gouge the other party in [an] outrageous fashion.
Strong or superlatively partisan attachment
Hyperpartisans are usually strong political party supporters who identify as close or very close to one political party.
Exclusivity
Hyperpartisans are highly exclusive of the identified rival, opposite party or camp.
Hostility
Hyperpartisans treat oppositive party or camp with high level of hostility with the often use of the verbs of “hate”, “despise”.
Apprehension
Hyperpartisans consider other rival party or camp as threatening and associate it with a negative or highly negative labels
Hyperpartisan_DPP | Hyperpartisan_KMT | |
---|---|---|
Chi2 (df=3) | 14.738 | 11.206 |
p | 0.002 | 0.011 |
RMSEA | 0.019 | 0.016 |
CFI | 0.999 | 0.999 |
Hyperpartisanship is different from sorting or partisanship
Exclusivity
High negative sentiments
Hostility
Apprehension
Media effect: weak exogeneity
New hypotheses:
Exposure to highly partisan political talkshows reinforces partisan position, fostering hyperpartisanship
Hyperpartisanship is a combination of attitudes and affects, beyond rational models.
Preliminary findings on hyperpartisanship
Sorting and affect polarization
Traditional partisanship studies vs. hyperpartisanship:
media effect
self-media
populism
US media bias
Impact on Party system