Bryan E Denham1. 1. Department of Communication, Clemson University, United States. Electronic address: bdenham@clemson.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States. METHODS: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization. RESULTS: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance. CONCLUSION: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
BACKGROUND: Based on recent research in political science, which has conceptualized political party affiliation as a form of social identity, the present study examined political ideology, party affiliation, and associated control measures as determinants of attitudes toward marijuana legalization. The research, which examined attitudes at 16 points in time across a 30-year period, anticipated an increasingly important role for party affiliation, given increased partisanship in the United States. METHODS: Drawing on data gathered in the General Social Survey, the study used binary logistic regression analysis to test the explanatory effects of ideology, affiliation and control measures on support for marijuana legalization. RESULTS: As anticipated, political ideology showed significance as an explanatory measure across the 30-year period, but party affiliation did not become a consistent, statistically controlled determinant until 2004, when Republicans began to express significantly less support than Democrats and Independents. In terms of demographic control measures, the study found males and younger respondents to express greater support for legalization. In recent periods of study, White and Black respondents expressed greater support than minorities apart from African Americans, while education level and region of the country showed sporadic explanatory significance. CONCLUSION: While political ideology, conceived as a form of personal identity, predicted attitudes toward marijuana legalization across 30 years of analysis, party affiliation, conceived as a form of group identity, became a consistently significant predictor in the 21st century. This finding suggests increases in partisanship and group identity, which in turn suggest potential increases in the politicization of drug policy. The article concludes with limitations and recommendations for future research.
Authors: Rahmat Dapari; Mohd Hafizuddin Mahfot; Ahmad Iqmer Nashriq Mohd Nazan; Mohd Rohaizat Hassan; Nazri Che Dom; Syed Sharizman Syed Abdul Rahim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 3.240