“I’m with her” or “we’re with her”?Personal versus group leader-based identities and types of political participation

Referències bibliogràfiques

• Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. Springer-Verlag Publishing.
• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identifications: A social psychology theory of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge.
• Balderacchi, C. (2017). Participatory Mechanisms in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela: Deepening or Undermining Democracy? Government and Opposition, 52(1), 131-161.
• Bartolini, S., & Mair, P. (1990). Policy competition, spatial distance and electoral instability. West European Politics, 13(4), 1-16.
• Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 644(1), 20-39.
• Berry, J. A., Ebner, D., & Cornelius, M. (2019). White Identity Politics: Linked Fate and Political Participation. Politics, Groups & Identities, 1-19.
• Booth, J. A. & Seligson, M. A. (2009). The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America. Political Support and Democracy in Eight Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Carty, K. (2013). Are political parties meant to be democratic? In W. Cross & R. Katz (Eds.), The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy (pp. 11-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chiaramonte, A. & V. Emanuele. (2017). Party system volatility, regeneration and de-institutionalization in Western Europe (1945-2015), Party Politics, 23, 376-388.
• Collier, R. B. and S. Handlin (2009). Introduction: Popular Representation in the Interest Arena and General Patterns and Emergent Differences. In R. B. Collier & S. Handlin (Eds.), Reorganizing Popular Politics: Participation and the New Interest Regime in Latin America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Conover, P. J. (1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception and evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 46(3), 760-785.
• Conover, P. J. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18(1), 51-76.
• Coppedge, M. (1998). The dynamic diversity of Latin American party systems. Party Politics, 4(4): 547-568.
• Dalton, R. J. & Wattenberg, M. P. (2000). ‘The consequences of political dealignment’ in Parties without partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies, ed. R. J. Dalton, I. McAllister and M. P. Wattenberg (pp. 37-63) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• De Weerd, M., & Klandermans, B. (1999). Group identification and political protest: Farmers’ protest in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(8), 1073-1095.
• Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social Movements: An Introduction. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Druckman, J. N., and Levendusky, M. S. (2019). What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?, Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003
• Dunning, T. (2009). Direct Action and Associational Participation: Problem-Solving Repertoires of Individuals. In Ruth Berins Collier and Samuel Handlin (eds.), Reorganizing Popular Politics: Participation and the New Interest Regime in Latin America eds. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Ferrer, M., Median, L. & Torcal, M. (2006). «La participación política: factores explicativos». In J. Font, J. R. Montero & M. Torcal (Eds.). Ciudadanos, asociaciones y participación política en España (pp. 133-155). Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
• García-Guadilla, M. P. & Mallen, A. (2019). Polarization, Participatory Democracy, and Democratic Erosion in Venezuela’s Twenty-first Century Socialism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 62-77.
• Garzia, D. (2011). The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 697-709.
• Garzia, D. (2013). Changing parties, changing partisans: the personalization of partisan attachments in Western Europe. Political Psychology, 34, 67-89.
• Garzia, D. (2017). ‘Voter Evaluation of Candidates and Party Leaders’. Eds. K. Arzheimer, J. Evans & M. Lewis-Beck, The Handbook of Electoral Behaviour. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• Garzia, D., Ferreira da Silva, F. & De Angelis, A. (2018). Partisan Dealignment and the Personalization of Politics in Western European Parliamentary Democracies, 1961-2016. Working paper. Center for the Study of Democracy, UC Irvine.
• Grant, W. J., Moon, B., & Grant, J. B. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579-604.
• Green, D., Palmquist, B. & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2010). Congressional candidates’ use of YouTube in 2008: Its frequency and rationale. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(2), 93-109.
• Hawkins, K. A. (2010). Who Mobilizes? Participatory Democracy in Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution. Latin American Politics and Society, 52(3), 31-66
• Hetherington, M. J. (2009). Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 413-448.
• Hetherington, M. J., Long M. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2016). Revisiting the myth. New evidence of a polarized electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 321-350.
• Hirsch, E. L. (1990). Sacrifice for the cause: The impact of group processes on recruitment and commitment in protest movements. American Sociological Review, 55, 243-254.
• Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective: Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small group research, 35(3), 246-276.
• Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political psychology, 22(1), 127-156.
• Huddy, L. (2003). Group identity and political cohesion. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. Leonie Huddy David O. Sears and Robert Jervis. New York: Oxford University Press chapter Group identity and political cohesion.
• Huddy, L., Mason, L. & Aaroe, L. (2015). Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1-17.
• Ignazi, P. (2020). The failure of mainstream parties and the impact of new challenger parties in France, Italy, and Spain. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2020.26
• Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129-146.
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 404-431.
• Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690-707.
• Karvonen, L. (2010). The Personalization of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
• Kitschelt, H., Hawkins, K. A., Luna, J. P., Rosas, G. & Zechmeister, E. J. (2010). Latin American Party Systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Klandermans, B. (2000). Identity and protest: how group identification helps to overcome collective action dilemmas. In M. Van Vugt, M. Snyder, T. R. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.). Cooperation in modern society: Promoting the welfare of communities, states, and organizations (pp. 162-183). London: Routledge.
• Klandermans, B. (2003). Collective political action. In Sears, D. O., L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 670-709). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Klandermans, B., & De Weerd, M. (2000). Group identification and political protest. In Stryker, T. Owens, & R.W. White (Eds.). Social psychology and social movements: Cloudy past and bright future (pp. 68-92). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Larsson, A. O. (2014). The EU parliament on Twitter-Assessing the permanent online practices of parliamentarians. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 149-166.
• Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2011). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729-747.
• Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: an introduction. New York: Free Press.
• Mainwaring, S. & Torcal, M. (2006). Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. Handbook of party politics, 11(6), 204-227.
• Mair, P. (2005). Democracy Beyond Parties. Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California.
• Mazzoleni, G. (2000). A return to civic and political engagement prompted by personalized political leadership? Political Communication, 17, 325-328.
• McAllister, I. (2007). The Personalization of Politics. In R. J. Dalton & H. Klingemann, The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (pp. 571-588). New York: Oxford University Press.
• McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16-42.
• Meyrowitz, J. (1985). The impact of electronic media on social behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Moseley, M. W. (2018). Protest State. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Moseley, M. W. (2015). Contentious Engagement: Understanding Protest Participation in Latin American Democracies. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(3), 3-48.
• Ocampo, A. X., Dana, K., & Barreto, M. A. (2018). The American Muslim Voter: Community Belonging and Political Participation. Social Science Research, 72, 84-99.
• Piñeiro, R., Rhodes-Purdy, M., & Rosenblatt, F. (2016). The Engagement Curve: Populism and Political Engagement in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 51, 3-23.
• Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual review of Sociology, 27(1), 283-305.
• Rahat, G. & Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949-2003, Political Communication, 41, 65-80.
• Ramírez, C. V. (2005). Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution: Who are the Chavistas? Latin American Perspectives, 32(3), 79-97.
• Ren, Y., Harper, F. M., Drenner, S., Terveen, L., Kiesler, S., Riedl, J., & Kraut, R. E. (2012). Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. Mis Quarterly, 841-864.
• Rhodes-Purdy, M. & Madrid, R. L. (2020). The perils of personalism. Democratization, 27, 2, 321-339.
• Sanchez, G. R. & Vargas, E. D. (2016). Taking a Closer Look at Group Identity: The Link between Theory and Measurement of Group Consciousness and Linked Fate. Political research quarterly, 69(1), 160-174.
• Simon B., Loewy, M., Sturmer, S., Weber, U., Kampmeier, C., Freytag, P., Habig, C., & Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective identity and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 646-658.
• Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
• Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Tate, K. (1993). From protest to politics: The new black voters in American elections. New York: Russell Sage.
• Teorell, J., Torcal, M. and Montero, J. R. (2007). Political Participation: Mapping the Terrain. In J. van Deth, A. Westholm & J. R. Montero (Eds.), Citizenship, Involvement in European Democracies. A comparative Analysis. London: Routledge.
• Torcal, M. (Ed.). (2015). Sistemas de partidos en America Latina. Causas y consequencias de su equilibrio inestable. Anthropos: Barcelona.
• Trepte, S. & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self-cateogrization theory. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen. The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1832-1845). Malten, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 6-34). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Valenzuela, S., Somma, N., Scherman, A. & Arriagada, A. (2016). Social media in Latin America: deepening or bridging gaps in protest participation? Online Information Review, 40(5), 695-711.
• van Aelst, P., Sharif, T. & Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations, and key findings, Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 13(2), 203-220.
• Van de Eijk, C. & Franklin, M. (2009). Elections and Voters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. (2008). Toward and Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-Psychological Perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535.
• West, K. J. (2020). Candidate Matters: A Study of Ethnic Parties, Campaigns, and Elections in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zechmeister, E. J., & Corral, M. (2013). «Individual and Contextual Constraints on Ideological Labels in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 46(6), 675-701.