Multiple Identification Targets in Examining Partisan Identification:A Case Study of Texas Latinos

Abstract

Partisan identification is a critical variable in understanding voters’ attitudes and behaviors. This study extends previous research on partisan identification by examining multiple identification targets that may influence citizens’ interpretations of and responses to partisan messages. Based on a survey of Texas Latino U.S. citizens, the study found that (a) Texas Latinos’ party identification is complex, relating to other identification targets; (b) Texas Latinos only modestly identify with political parties; and (c) the strength of Texas Latinos’ identification with the Democratic Party is questionable, especially among the youth. The study encourages scholars to use multiple identification targets as a theoretical framework for examining identification in political communication studies.

Keywords:

• identification
• multiple identification targets
• political parties
• Latinos

Notes

Author's note: Portions of this article appear in S. L. Connaughton (2004). Inviting Latino voters: Party messages and Latino party identification. New York: Routledge.

Editor's Note: This essay is a portion of the author‘s dissertation completed at The University of Texas at Austin under the supervision of Dr. Sharon E. Jarvis. The author wishes to thank Sharon Jarvis, Ron Rice, Kathryn Greene, Craig Scott, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

¹Although this study examines multiple identification targets of a sample of Texas Latinos, this approach could be used to examine the party identification of other U.S. populations.

²I am exceedingly grateful to the course instructors at these sites for agreeing to use class time for this project.

³Because respondents have multiple identities in different contexts (e.g., a mother in a social context; a Republican in a political one), it was necessary to prime them to think of their identities within a political context. This was done in two ways: in the introduction to the study and in the consent form that was attached to each survey.

⁴Although the mean for age seems low, it reflects the age composition of the Latino population, for according to 2000 Census data, one third of the Latino population is below 18 years old (Campbell, 2001). One hundred twenty-five respondents were between 18–27 years; 33 were between 28–37 years; 19 were between 38–47 years; 16 were between 48–59 years; and 2 respondents were over age 60.

⁵10.3% were white-collar employees, 7.2% were skilled laborers, 6.7% were self-employed, 6.2% identified themselves as higher education professionals, 2.6% were homemakers, 1.5% were retired, 1% were skilled laborers, 1% were unemployed, and .5% considered themselves something other than the categories provided.

⁶The other frequently used organizational identification scale is Cheney's Organizational Identification Questionnaire (OIQ). Miller, Allen, Casey, & Johnson (2000), however, have called into question the content validity of the scale. Miller et al. stated that previous researchers using the OIQ have tested its internal reliability, but not its validity. This is an important omission, Miller et al. argued, because there is evidence that the OIQ converges with Mowday, Steers, and Porter's (1979) Organizational Commitment measure (see Sass & Canary, 1991). Considering this discussion, Mael and Ashforth's (1992) scale was used.

⁷It is important to clarify that the survey instrument measured identification with political party in three ways. First, respondents were asked a closed-ended question, adapted from the University of Michigan survey, “Are you a Democrat or Republican?” Respondents could circle one or the other, or proceed to the next question if they were an “Independent” or “neither.” Data from this survey question were used to determine frequencies of Democrats and Republicans. Second, a respondent's strength of party identification was measured using a series of Likert-type items, adapted from Mael and Ashforth's scale (1992). The mean identification score from this data represents the extent of this sample's identification with party and was used as the party identification score in the regression analysis. Third, respondents answered an open-ended question, “What groups do you belong to?” Some respondents chose a particular political party here as well.

⁸For this, the responses to the survey question “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or what?” were used. In the data analysis, only those respondents who answered Democrat or Republican were included. Because this is a dichotomous variable, a chi square is appropriate here.