Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The demographic basis of party identification in Canada : 1965-1979 Bruton, James G. 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A1 B78.pdf [ 15.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097079.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097079-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097079-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097079-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097079-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097079-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097079-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097079-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097079.ris

Full Text

THE DEMOGRAPHIC BASIS OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION IN CANADA: 1965-1979 by JAMES G. BRUTON B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y Of Windsor, 1977 M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y Of Windsor, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of P o l i t i c a l Science We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 1987 © James G. Bruton, 1987 4 6 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of /o( t'K' f c C v( Sc .^c fc The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date Ocjt , il//<7 21 i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I The Theory of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 1 Chapter II M e t h o d o l o g i c a l and T h e o r e t i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n the A g e - P e r i o d - C o h o r t A n a l y s i s of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . . . 26 Chapter III An A g e - P e r i o d - C o h o r t A n a l y s i s of the S t r e n g t h of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 52 Chapter IV An A g e - P e r i o d - C o h o r t A n a l y s i s of the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 108 Chapter V A Panel A n a l y s i s of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 165 Chapter VI C o n c l u s i o n s 209 B i b l i o g r a p h y 226 Appendix I 233 Appendix II 236 i v LIST OF TABLES T a b l e Page I Average P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h by Year of Survey . . . - 54 II S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h 61 III S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) 70 IV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h 76 V S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) 83 VI S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on C o n s e r v a t i v e S t r e n g t h 87 VII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC P a r t y S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) 94 VIII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP P a r t y S t r e n g t h 97 IX S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP P a r t y S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) 103 X D i s t r i b u t i o n of F e d e r a l V o t e , 1965-1979 111 XI D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , 1 965-1 979 111 XII D i s t r i b u t i o n of the V o t e , 1896-1980 113 XIII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s 116 XIV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) 127 XV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s 129 V T a b l e Page XVI S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) 139 XVII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s 141 XVIII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) 149 XIX The S t a b i l i t y of the D i r e c t i o n Component of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Pane l 183 XX The S t a b i l i t y of the S t r e n g t h Component of Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Pane l 184 XXI Summary of S t a b i l i t y in P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , 1974-79-80, 1974-79, 1979-80 Panels 185 XXII Summary of S t a b i l i t y in P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , 1974-79-80, 1974-79, 1974-80 Pane l s ( F i r s t - W a v e I d e n t i f i e r s Only) 186 XXIII Average S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Pane l Wave for S t a b l e and Not S t a b l e I d e n t i f i e r s (1974-79-80 Panel ) 188 XXIV Mean S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Pane l Wave by Age for S t a b l e and Not S t a b l e I d e n t i f i e r s (1974-79-80 P a n e l , 1974 F a i r l y Strong I d e n t i f i e r s Only) 191 XXV S t a b i l i t y of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Age by Panel 193 XXVI S t a b i l i t y of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Age by F i r s t - W a v e S t r e n g t h of Attachment 195 XXVII D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y by I n i t i a l - W a v e P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Pane l 198 XXVIII D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y by I n i t i a l - W a v e P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n C o n t r o l l i n g for I n i t i a l - W a v e P a r t y S t r e n g t h by Pane l 200 v i T a b l e Page XXIX I n i t i a l - W a v e S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Panel 204 XXX. D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by F i r s t - W a v e S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Panel 206 XXXI P a t t e r n s of Change i n P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , 1974-79-80, 1974-79, 1979-80 Pane l 210 XXXII D i s t r i b u t i o n of the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n for Each Wave of the Pane l s . . 213 XXXIII Summary of Turnover i n the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the 1974-79 Panel . . . 215 XXXIV Turnover in the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e 1979-80 Pane l 216 Appendix I . XXXV Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups - A l l . I d e n t i f i e r s 107 XXXVI Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups - L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i e r s 108 XXXVII Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups - C o n s e r v a t i v e I d e n t i f i e r s 108 XXXVIII Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups - NDP I d e n t i f i e r s 109 Appendix I I . XXXIX S o c i a l E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Year 168 XL S o c i a l E f f e c t s on PC I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Year . . 169 XLI S o c i a l E f f e c t s on NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Year . 170 XLII Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups 171 XLIII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in Quebec, O n t a r i o and the P r a i r i e s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) . . . . 172 v i i T a b l e Page XLIV S-ocial and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in Quebec, O n t a r i o and the P r a i r i e s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) 175 XLV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in Quebec, O n t a r i o and the P r a i r i e s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) 178 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES o F i g u r e Page 1-1 I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v o t i n g c h o i c e , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s h o r t - t e r m a t t i t u d e s 10 II — 1 H y p o t h e t i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Age and S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 38 III — 1 S t r e n g t h of F e d e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Age . . . 5 5 111-2 S t r e n g t h of F e d e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Cohort 5 7 111 - 3 Age E s t i m a t e s of the S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 6 5 111 -4 Cohort E s t i m a t e s of the S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 66 -III-5 Age E s t i m a t e s of S t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 .... 81 111 — 6 Cohort E s t i m a t e s of S t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 81 111 — 7 Cohort E s t i m a t e s of S t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 . . . . . 9 1 111 — 8 Cohort E s t i m a t e s of S t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 9 i 111-9 Age E s t i m a t e s of S t r e n g t h of NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 102 I I I - 10 Cohort E s t i m a t e s of S t r e n g t h of NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Models 1-8 1 0 2 IV- 1 Cohort E s t i m a t e s for L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i e r s , Models 1-8 120 IV-2 Age E s t i m a t e s for L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i e r s , Models 1-8 120 IV-3 Cohort E s t i m a t e s for C o n s e r v a t i v e I d e n t i f i e r s , Models 1-8 136 IV-4 Age E s t i m a t e s for C o n s e r v a t i v e I d e n t i f i e r s , Models 1-8 136 ix F i g u r e Page I V - 5 Age E s t i m a t e s for NDP I d e n t i f i e r s , Models 1-8 146 IV-6 Cohort E s t i m a t e s f o r NDP I d e n t i f i e r s , Models 1-8 146 A ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank Donald Blake and Richard Johnston f o r t h e i r suggestions and c o r r e c t i o n s . The q u a l i t y of the t h e s i s would s u r e l y have s u f f e r e d without t h e i r i n p u t . In a d d i t i o n , comments by David E l k i n s were u s e f u l in making me address' i s s u e s that had been ne g l e c t e d . I would a l s o l i k e to thank the members of the PhD. seminar and Ken Carty f o r t h e i r c r i t i c i s m s . S p e c i a l a p p r e c i a t i o n goes to my wife K i r s t e n , without whose support t h i s t h e s i s c o u l d not have been completed. CHAPTER I THE THEORY OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION I n t r o d u c t i o n For more than twenty y e a r s , the dominant model of e l e c t o r a l c h o i c e has had at i t s c o r e , the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A sense of party" i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c c o u n t s for a wide range of p o l i t i c a l phenomena. The theory o f f e r s an e x p l a n a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l v o t i n g ; as w e l l , i t serves as the b a s i s of accounts of e l e c t o r a l outcomes. Most g e n e r a l l y , the theory seems to p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n of s t a b i l i t y and change in p a r t y a l ignments over t i m e . Remarkably , a l l of t h i s r e s t s upon a s i n g l e argument about i n d i v i d u a l s , s p e c i f i c a l l y , that most people d e v e l o p a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t i e to a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , a t i e which i s s t a b l e and which i n c r e a s e s in i n t e n s i t y over t i m e . T h i s t h e s i s examines whether the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a p p l i e s to the Canadian e l e c t o r a t e . The theory i s s t a t e d with s u f f i c i e n t c l a r i t y to generate c e r t a i n e x p e c t a t i o n s . Are these e x p e c t a t i o n s met in Canada? Two a n a l y t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s are employed to address the q u e s t i o n : an a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l d a t a , and an a n a l y s i s of pane l d a t a . These a n a l y s e s produce r e s u l t s 2 which d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the e x p e c t a t i o n s p r e d i c t e d by the t h e o r y . A l t h o u g h the r e s u l t s are i n c o n s i s t e n t wi th v the s t a n d a r d t h e o r y , they are n e v e r t h e l e s s i n t e r p r e t a b l e . P a r t y l o y a l t i e s i n Canada r e f l e c t the h i s t o r i c a l performance of each p a r t y r a t h e r than the o p e r a t i o n of ' an i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c proces s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . THE THEORY OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION The Psychology of I n d i v i d u a l P a r t i s a n s h i p P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e f e r s to a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t i e between an i n d i v i d u a l and a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n need not imply a formal membership or a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y nor need i t imply an unbroken r e c o r d of p a r t y s u p p o r t . 1 The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s seen m a i n l y as an a f f e c t i v e , as opposed to a r a t i o n a l l y based o r i e n t a t i o n . Campbel l et a l . (1960) d e s c r i b e p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in t h i s way: "Both r e f e r e n c e group theory and s m a l l - g r o u p s t u d i e s of i n f l u e n c e have converged upon the a t t r a c t i n g or r e p e l l i n g q u a l i t y of the group as the g e n e r a l i z e d d imens ion most c r i t i c a l in d e f i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l - g r o u p r e l a t i o n s h i p , and i t i s t h i s d imens ion that we w i l l c a l l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n The p o l i t i c a l p a r t y serves as the group toward which the i n d i v i d u a l may d e v e l o p an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p o s i t i v e or 3 n e g a t i v e , of some degree of i n t e n s i t y . " 2 The term " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " i s used i n t e n t i o n a l l y , f o l l o w i n g the F r e u d i a n p e r s p e c t i v e in which a p a r t of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y i s s a i d to merge wi th the p e r s o n a l i t y of a n o t h e r . 3 A c c o r d i n g to M i l l e r , t h i s usage i s a p p r o p r i a t e because "an important p a r t of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f - i d e n t i t y as a p o l i t i c a l a c t o r i s ' assumed to emanate from the sense of b e l o n g i n g to the p o l i t i c a l group ."" I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of t h i s type may operate below the c o n s c i o u s l e v e l wi thout any c o g n i t i v e b a s i s . They may r e s u l t from a b a s i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th p a r e n t s , s o c i a l groups or c h a r i s m a t i c p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s . 5 The i n d i v i d u a l ' s p a r t y t i e i s determined l a r g e l y by the p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s to which he or she i s exposed e a r l y in l i f e . The most important of these i s the t r a n s m i s s i o n of p a r t i s a n t i e s from o l d e r c i t i z e n s who have f u l l y deve loped p a r t i s a n d i s p o s i t i o n s to the young whose unders tand ing of the p o l i t i c a l wor ld i s on ly in i t s f ormat ive s tage . The nature of the t i e formed as a r e s u l t of the s o c i a l t r a n s m i s s i o n of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s may be e i t h e r n o n - c o g n i t i v e in the F r e u d i a n sense or c o g n i t i v e . N o n - c o g n i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are those which r e f l e c t l i t t l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the meaning of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and do not n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and other a t t i t u d e s toward the p o l i t i c a l w o r l d . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s i m i t a t e d d i r e c t l y from another 4 person and may lack p o l i t i c a l c o n t e n t . 6 C o g n i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are deve loped through o b s e r v a t i o n of o t h e r s , n o t a b l y p a r e n t s and p e e r s , in p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s . Through s o c i a l l e a r n i n g , young people a c q u i r e b e h a v i o r s and a t t i t u d e s by "model l ing them on p a r e n t s ' responses to p o l i t i c a l e v e n t s . " 7 . T h i s model d i f f e r s from the n o n - c o g n i t i v e development of p a r t i s a n s h i p in that some p o l i t i c a l meaning i s t i e d to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The authors of The American Voter p l a c e d p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the f a m i l y as the pr imary source of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . At the same t i m e , they a s s i g n e d a secondary r o l e to other s o c i a l groups as i n c u l c a t o r s of p a r t i s a n a t tachments . Subsequent r e s e a r c h has r e v e a l e d the importance of such groups and the s o c i a l environment more g e n e r a l l y as p o t e n t i a l sources of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and that the t r a n s m i s s i o n between parent and c h i l d i s not as commonplace as was p r e v i o u s l y t h o u g h t . 8 As a r e s u l t , r e s e a r c h e r s i n t e r e s t e d in the s o c i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s now give much more emphasis to i n f l u e n c e s o u t s i d e the f a m i l y as sources of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . These new f i n d i n g s do not c h a l l e n g e the r o l e p l a y e d by p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Even though the sources of p a r t i s a n s h i p may be more v a r i e d than o r i g i n a l l y thought , the idea t h a t p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a c e n t r a l p a r t of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f - i d e n t i t y as a p o l i t i c a l a c t o r remains i n t a c t . 5 The theory s t a t e s that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n perforins s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s for the i n d i v i d u a l . The most p r i m i t i v e use i s to p r o v i d e a d i r e c t cue in the v o t i n g b o o t h . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y important when campaign and l e a d e r appea l s have l i t t l e r e l e v a n c e for the i n d i v i d u a l . " A l l o ther th ings be ing e q u a l , and p a r t i c u l a r l y in the absence of ambiguous or c o n t r a r y i n f o r m a t i o n , the p a r t y l o y a l i s t v o t e s , and votes the p a r t y l i n e . " 9 P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a l s o serves a more important and complex f u n c t i o n as an i n f o r m a t i o n - e c o n o m i s i n g d e v i c e . For most i n d i v i d u a l s in a modern s o c i e t y , the a b s o r p t i o n and comprehension of the vas t amount of a v a i l a b l e p o l i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s i m p o s s i b l e g iven the amount of t ime and energy r e q u i r e d to a c c o m p l i s h such a t a s k . P a r t y attachment s i m p l i f i e s t h i s task c o n s i d e r a b l y by a l l o w i n g p a r t i s a n s to focus on statements g iven by, p a r t y spokesmen as cues for what the proper response to a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s h o u l d be . In t h i s sense , the p a r t y a c t s as a o p i n i o n - f o r m i n g a g e n c y 1 0 because i t permi t s " r e l i a n c e on many o t h e r s for cues and guides to one's own b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s . " 1 1 F u r t h e r m o r e , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c t s as a f i l t e r through which i n f o r m a t i o n must p a s s . Because the p a r t i s a n tends to use the p a r t y as a source of p o l i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n which i s c r i t i c a l of the p a r t y may not reach h im. T h i s i s because " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th a p a r t y r a i s e s a p e r c e p t u a l screen through which the i n d i v i d u a l tends to see what i s 6 f a v o u r a b l e to h i s p a r t i s a n o r i e n t a t i o n . The s t r o n g e r the p a r t y bond, the more exaggerated the process of s e l e c t i o n and p e r c e p t u a l d i s t o r t i o n w i l l b e . " 1 2 In t h i s manner, p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n works to produce a t t i t u d e s in the i n d i v i d u a l which are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those espoused by the p a r t y . In t u r n , these p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward the p a r t y tend to r e i n f o r c e the b a s i c p a r t i s a n s h i p of the i n d i v i d u a l . Over t ime t h i s p r o c e s s s t r e n g t h e n s the p a r t y a t tachment . The s t r e n g t h of p a r t i s a n s h i p i s a f u n c t i o n of the l e n g t h of t ime one has h e l d a c o n s i s t e n t p a r t y o r i e n t a t i o n . 1 3 The t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s of the c l a i m s for the s t a b i l i t y and i n c r e a s i n g i n t e n s i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n over time stem from the frequent use of a p a r t y l o y a l t y as a p e r c e p t u a l s c r e e n . 1 " Once a p a r t y t i e i s adopted , i t d i m i n i s h e s the l i k e l i h o o d of e n c o u n t e r i n g c r i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the p a r t y which might produce a change in the p a r t y t i e . As t h i s proces s c o n t i n u e s over t ime , the' i n t e n s i t y of the p a r t y t i e i n c r e a s e s in magnitude , thereby making the p r o b a b i l i t y of p a r t i s a n change i n c r e a s i n g l y u n l i k e l y . I t i s important to p o i n t out that Campbel l et a l . do not suggest that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p o s i t i v e l y c o l o u r s a l l a t t i t u d e s to p o l i t i c a l phenomena at a l l t i m e s . In f a c t they note that a t t i t u d e s which are not c o n s i s t e n t w i th p a r t i s a n s h i p can and do d e v e l o p . A sense of p a r t y l o y a l t y w i l l tend to undo these c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n s but at the same 7 t ime , c o n t r a r y o p i n i o n s w i l l exert some p r e s s u r e on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s attachment to the p a r t y . Indeed, i f c o n t r a r y p r e s s u r e s are of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude, s t a b l e p a r t i s a n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s may a c t u a l l y c h a n g e . 1 5 C o n s e q u e n t l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and other p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s i s viewed as be ing r e c i p r o c a l - p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s these a t t i t u d e s , but they a l s o a f f e c t p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . When a t t i t u d e s are c o n s i s t e n t wi th p a r t y attachment they w i l l r e i n f o r c e i t , and when they are c o n t r a r y , they w i l l work to erode i t . But the f o r c e s f l o w i n g between these o ther p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and p a r t i s a n s h i p are not e q u a l . P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s thought to e x e r t much more i n f l u e n c e on a t t i t u d e s than v i c e v e r s a . A change in p a r t y attachment r e q u i r e s s t r o n g c o n t r a d i c t o r y f o r c e s - the s t r o n g e r the p a r t y a t tachment , the s t r o n g e r the c o n t r a r y f o r c e s needed to change i t . 1 6 T y p i c a l l y , the impact of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on the vote i s through the way i t shapes a t t i t u d e s to c u r r e n t i s s u e s in the campaign. The vote i s l a r g e l y determined by s h o r t - t e r m a t t i t u d e s and the i n f l u e n c e of p a r t i s a n s h i p on the e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n i s ma in ly through i t s impact on these f a c t o r s . T h i s l eads to another important assumption r e g a r d i n g p a r t y ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , tha t i t i s l a r g e l y independent of the v o t e . Campbel l et a l . go to c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h s to show that whi le the d i r e c t i o n of the vote may f l u c t u a t e markedly from e l e c t i o n to e l e c t i o n , p a r t y 8 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n remains l a r g e l y u n c h a n g e d . 1 7 I t i s the p e r s i s t e n c e of p a r t i s a n s h i p over time which l e g i t i m i z e s the c l a i m that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a de terminant f i r s t of a t t i t u d e s , and then of the v o t e . T h i s , i s so because i t precedes both in time and because i t i s s t a b l e over t i m e . Much of the v a l i d i t y ' of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e s t s on the two assumptions that p a r t i s a n s h i p for the most p a r t i s s t a b l e and that i t i s independent of the vote.. Ev idence from the 1950's on which The American V o t e r i s based seems to support these c o n c l u s i o n s overwhe lming ly . On the s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the ev idence comes fr.om r e c a l l d a t a . Most respondents r e p o r t that, they s t i l l i d e n t i f y w i t h the p a r t y for which they f i r s t voted and few people r e p o r t ever changing t h e i r p a r t i s a n s h i p . F u r t h e r m o r e , most people c l a i m e d to i d e n t i f y wi th the same p a r t y as t h e i r p a r e n t s . T h i s l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n that p a r t i s a n s h i p was s t a b l e both a c r o s s g e n e r a t i o n s and w i t h i n g e n e r a t i o n s . 1 8 On v o t i n g , i t was found that whi le many respondents vo ted for a p a r t y o ther than the one they i d e n t i f i e d w i t h , t h e i r p a r t i s a n s h i p n e v e r t h e l e s s remained the same. Strong i d e n t i f i e r s were more c o n s i s t e n t one p a r t y v o t e r s than independents whose r e c a l l of past v o t i n g i n d i c a t e d a good d e a l of f l u c t u a t i o n . 1 9 In sum, the major ideas i n c o r p o r a t e d in the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l are as f o l l o w s : 9 1) P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is* an a f f e c t i v e t i e between the i n d i v i d u a l and a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . 2) I t deve lops over t ime , sometimes b e g i n n i n g in ado l e scence and s o l i d i f y i n g i n t o a c o n c r e t e bond in most cases be fore the age of t h i r t y . 3) The d i r e c t i o n of the p a r t y t i e i s de termined l a r g e l y by the p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s at work d u r i n g the format ive p e r i o d . 4) The c h i e f source of i n f l u e n c e i s the immediate f a m i l y . Because of t h i s , the p a r t i s a n t i e of the young i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y to be the same as h i s or her p a r e n t s . From t h i s f lows the c l a i m that p a r t i s a n s h i p i s s t a b l e a c r o s s g e n e r a t i o n s . Where p a r e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s f a i l , the s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s that dominate are those i m p r i n t e d in e a r l y a d u l t h o o d . 5) P a r t i s a n s h i p i s s t a b l e over t ime , due to the proces s of s e l e c t i o n and p e r c e p t u a l d i s t o r t i o n of the p o l i t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d by the i n d i v i d u a l . 6) The p a r t y t i e i n c r e a s e s in i n t e n s i t y over t i m e . 7) P a r t i s a n s h i p i s independent of the v o t e . I t i s not i d e n t i c a l to c u r r e n t v o t i n g i n t e n t i o n nor i s i t t y p i c a l l y r e s p o n s i v e to the same f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h i s i n t e n t i o n . 8) P a r t i s a n s h i p i s an important i n f l u e n c e on the development of the more immediate a t t i t u d e s which determine the v o t i n g d e c i s i o n . The impact of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on the vote i s t h e r e f o r e i n d i r e c t . The f u l l model d e p i c t i n g the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v o t i n g c h o i c e , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s h o r t - t e r m p a r t i s a n a t t i t u d e s i s shown g r a p h i c a l l y in F i g u r e 1-1. The v o t i n g d e c i s i o n i t s e l f i s most immediate ly determined by a t t i t u d e s toward the 'components of the e l e c t o r a l d e c i s i o n ' . P r e c e d i n g and i n f l u e n c i n g these are the c a n d i d a t e s themselves and the i s s u e s which a r i s e d u r i n g the campaign. A l s o important i s the nature of the t i m e s , the r e c o r d of the 1 0 Campaign candidates Social group memberships 'Party Identification Attitude to Democratic candidate Attitude to Repub lican candidate Attitude to group benefits Attitudes on domestic policy Attitudes on * foreign policy General g o o d - ^ \ ^ Attitudes to parties ness/badness a s managers of of times » government Figure I - 1 : Interrelationships between voting choice, partu identification  and short-term partisan attitudes Source: Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie. Partg Identification and Beuond (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976), p. 6. 11 government and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o c i a l group memberships. Occupying a predominant r o l e in the model i s p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a mediator of s o c i a l group i n f l u e n c e s and as a determinant of a t t i t u d e s to the campaign i s s u e s and c a n d i d a t e s . 2 0 1 2 The A g g r e g a t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l P a r t i s a n L o y a l t i e s The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n has d e a l t w i th the concept of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i t s uses to e x p l a i n i n d i v i d u a l v o t i n g b e h a v i o r . When aggregated a c r o s s i n d i v i d u a l s , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n becomes an important a n a l y t i c t o o l for the study of e l e c t i o n outcomes and p a r t y system s t a b l i t y . For example, C o n v e r s e 2 1 argues that an assessment of the impact of s h o r t - t e r m f a c t o r s ( l e a d e r s , c a n d i d a t e s , and i s s u e s ) on the vote can be determined for the e l e c t o r a t e as a whole by c a l c u l a t i n g what would have been each p a r t y ' s share of the vote i f v o t e r s s imply voted t h e i r p a r t y l o y a l t y and then s u b t r a c t i n g t h i s from what a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d . 2 2 From t h i s , - an assessment of the impact of shor t and l o n g - t e r m f a c t o r s in an e l e c t i o n can be d e t e r m i n e d . T h i s has obvious importance for e x p l a n a t i o n s of e l e c t o r a l outcomes. F u r t h e r m o r e , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n serves as the b a s i s of a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of e l e c t o r a l outcomes. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c r o s s time i s taken as an i n d i c a t o r of s t a b i l i t y and change from one e l e c t i o n to the n e x t . E l e c t i o n s may be c l a s s i f i e d as m a i n t a i n i n g , d e v i a t i n g or r e a l i g n i n g depending on what happens to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p a r t y ba lance as a r e s u l t of the e l e c t i o n . 2 3 A m a i n t a i n i n g e l e c t i o n i s one in which the u n d e r l y i n g 1 3 d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t i s a n s h i p remains u n a l t e r e d . When the ba lance of p a r t i s a n s h i p i s a l t e r e d on ly t e m p o r a r i l y , ( i . e . , s h o r t - t e r m d e f e c t i o n s from p a r t i s a n s h i p ) , the e l e c t i o n i s c l a s s i f i e d as d e v i a t i n g . A r e a l i g n i n g e l e c t i o n i s one in which the p a r t i s a n ba lance i s permanent ly a l t e r e d . But the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n does more than p r o v i d e for a c l a s s i f i c a t o r y scheme of e l e c t i o n s . I t o f f e r s an e x p l a n a t i o n of g r a d u a l changes of the a l i g n m e n t s in the p a r t y system over t i m e . That e x p l a n a t i o n r e s t s on the r e c o g n i t i o n that the c o m p o s i t i o n of the e l e c t o r a t e i s c o n s t a n t l y changing due to the n a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s of b i r t h and d e a t h . Each g e n e r a t i o n (or c o h o r t ) of new v o t e r s undergoes i t s i n i t i a l exposure to the p o l i t i c a l wor ld in a d i s t i n c t p e r i o d of h i s t o r y . S ince the d i r e c t i o n of the p a r t y t i e i s thought to be determined by the p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s at work d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , and s i n c e the d i r e c t i o n of p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s may not always r e f l e c t t h e . e x i s t i n g p a r t i s a n d i s t r i b u t i o n , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in new g e n e r a t i o n s of v o t e r s may d i f f e r from t h a t of the e s t a b l i s h e d e l e c t o r a t e . As the e s t a b l i s h e d e l e c t o r a t e d i e s out and i s r e p l a c e d by the younger g e n e r a t i o n , the p a r t y ba lance s h i f t s . The s t a b i l i t y of the p a r t y system over time depends on the s u c c e s s f u l r e p r o d u c t i o n of the e x i s t i n g p a r t i s a n balance in new c o h o r t s of v o t e r s . Should t h i s f a i l to o c c u r , change in the p a r t y a l ignment w i l l take p l a c e over t i m e . 14 From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , change comes p r i m a r i l y through the replacement of the e l e c t o r a t e r a t h e r than through the c o n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n g p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . 2 " I t i s the young who are d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y r e s p o n s i v e to the f o r c e s of change . The e s t a b l i s h e d e l e c t o r a t e i s thought to be r e l a t i v e l y unmoved by such f o r c e s because i t i s l a r g e l y composed of p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . A sense of attachment to a p a r t y s erves as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n c h o r 2 5 tha t c o n s t r a i n s r e s p o n s i v e n e s s to the mundane, t r a n s i t o r y events of the p o l i t i c a l w o r l d . O l d e r members of the e l e c t o r a t e t y p i c a l l y are the s t r o n g e s t i d e n t i f i e r s and hence , the most r e s i s t a n t to change. These accounts of aggregate f e a t u r e s i n changes in p a r t y a l i gnment s f o l l o w d i r e c t l y from the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . G e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the type that produce r e a l i g n m e n t s are thought to be the "product of the h i s t o r i c a l l y s p e c i f i c exper i ences of each cohor t of v o t e r s when i t f i r s t came of p o l i t i c a l a g e . " 2 6 For most members of a c o h o r t , the i n i t i a l p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e produced by these e x p e r i e n c e s c r y s t a l l i z e s i n t o a f u l l p a r t i s a n t i e . Over time the t i e i n t e n s i f i e s , making change l e s s l i k e l y a l t h o u g h not i m p o s s i b l e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , each c o h o r t i s l i k e l y to bear the i m p r i n t of i t s i n i t i a l p o l i t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e s , even when viewed a f t e r the lapse of a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d of t i m e . In s h o r t , the d i r e c t i o n of the 1 5 p a r t y t i e i s a c o h o r t or g e n e r a t i o n a l phenemenoh and the s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to the l i f e c o u r s e . 2 7 A l l of t h i s r e p r e s e n t s a very s t rong and comprehensive theory that o f f e r s a f a i r l y complete e x p l a n a t i o n of v o t i n g behav ior at both the i n d i v i d u a l and aggregate l e v e l s . In f a c t , the impact of the theory has been so g r e a t that i t has dominated e l e c t o r a l r e s e a r c h not on ly in the U n i t e d S ta tes but in most other Western democrac ies as w e l l . THE UTILITY OF THE THEORY IN CANADA Is the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n u s e f u l in Canada? Assessments of the u t i l i t y of the theory in the Canadian s e t t i n g range from M e i s e l ' s v e r d i c t that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n "may be almost i n a p p l i c a b l e i n C a n a d a " 2 8 to Sniderman et a l . ' s c o n c l u s i o n that i t "is a u s e f u l concept in the a n a l y s i s of the vote in C a n a d a . " 2 9 These o b v i o u s l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y p e r s p e c t i v e s u n d e r l i n e the absence of consensus on the matter and by themselves j u s t i f y a search for c l a r i f i c a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n seeks to c l a r i f y the a c c u r a c y of these p o i n t s of view by f o c u s i n g on the demographic assumpt ions which form the core of the t h e o r y . To d a t e , the Canadian debate on p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n \6 t u r n s on three q u e s t i o n s ; the s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c r o s s g e n e r a t i o n s , the s t a b i l i t y of party-i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c r o s s e l e c t i o n s , and the d i s t i n c t i o n between p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the v o t e . Research i n d i c a t e s that p a r t y l o y a l t i e s are h e r i t a b l e . But the i n c i d e n c e of i n h e r i t e d p a r t y at tachments i s not as grea t in Canada as in the U n i t e d S t a t e s . However, i t i s an open q u e s t i o n as to what the lower r a t e of p a r e n t - c h i l d agreement means for the s t a b i l i t y of the Canadian p a r t y s y s t e m . 3 0 N e i t h e r i s there any agreement on the meaning of the lower i n c i d e n c e of p a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y a c r o s s e l e c t i o n s in Canada compared to that i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . One p o s i t i o n i s that Canadian p a r t y l o y a l t i e s must be t r e a t e d l e s s as l o n g - t e r m p s y c h o l o g i c a l t i e s and more as mutable at tachments which are dependent on the c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . 3 1 But the c o n t r a r y p o s i t i o n i s that whi le the i n c i d e n c e of change may be h i g h e r in Canada, the p a t t e r n of change i s s i m i l a r . in both c o u n t r i e s ; hence, the nature of the phenomenon i s e s s e n t i a l l y the same in both c o u n t r i e s . 3 2 Yet another i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a t t r i b u t e s much of the c r o s s - n a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e to p e c u l i a r i t i e s in the measurement of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in each c o u n t r y . 3 3 Accompanying these c o n t r o v e r s i e s i s another i n v o l v i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the v o t e . The very s t r e n g t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two makes c l a i m s of t h e i r independence s u s p e c t . Pane l ev idence on the j o i n t turnover 17 of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the vote r e v e a l a tendency of the two to t r a v e l t o g e t h e r 3 " but some of t h i s may be due to m i s e s t i m a t i o n of both v a r i a b l e s in survey d a t a . 3 5 In the Canadian debate over the u t i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s c a r c e l y any a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d to the demographic i m p l i c a t i o n s of the t h e o r y . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s only two s t u d i e s that bear on t h i s c r u c i a l aspect of the t h e o r y . B l a c k ' s s tudy of immigrant a d a p t a t i o n in Canada showed that immigrants are j u s t as l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i th a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y and e q u a l l y as l i k e l y to ev ince a s t r o n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as are n a t i v e born C a n a d i a n s . 3 6 T h e o r e t i c a l l y , s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n c r e a s e s w i th the d u r a t i o n of the p a r t y t i e . Given that immigrants are not as l i k e l y to have been i d e n t i f i e r s w i th a p a r t y for a s long as have n a t i v e - b o r n v o t e r s , t h i s f i n d i n g runs c o n t r a r y to t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . J o h n s t o n ' s study of p o l i t i c a l g e n e r a t i o n s and e l e c t o r a l m o b i l i z a t i o n bears more d i r e c t l y on the m a t t e r . He found on ly a weak r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and i n t e n s i t y and ambiguous ev idence wi th re spec t to age and the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A g e n e r a t i o n a l account of age d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was found to be unwarranted . Moreover , the weakness of the a g e - s t r e n g t h r e l a t i o n s h i p suggests that the s t a n d a r d account of p o l i t i c a l rea l ignment would not seem to be a p p l i c a b l e in t h i s c o u n t r y . 3 7 18 Whi le these s t u d i e s are s u g g e s t i v e , n e i t h e r p r o v i d e s a complete assessment of the demographic i m p l i c a t i o n s of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . That can o n l y be ach ieved through a more comprehensive a n a l y s i s of age, p e r i o d and c o h o r t v a r i a t i o n . It i s to t h i s task that we now t u r n our a t t e n t i o n . The u t i l i t y of any theory i s gauged by how w e l l i t e x p l a i n s e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s . I t i s to the c r e d i t of the o r i g i n a t o r s of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n that t e s t a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s can be. drawn from i t . From the t h e o r y , i t i s expected that the p a r t y l o y a l t y of most people w i l l be s t a b l e over t i m e . As w e l l , i t i s expected that the i n t e n s i t y of the attachment, wi11 i n c r e a s e over t i m e . At the aggregate l e v e l , the p a r t i s a n ba lance based on the d i r e c t i o n of the p a r t y t i e i s a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d matter w h i l e i n t e n s i t y l e v e l s are r e l a t e d to a g i n g . These t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s are at the c e n t r e of o u r ^ a n a l y s i s • o f the Canadian d a t a . If v e r i f i e d , they w i l l b o l s t e r the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for u s i n g the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to e x p l a i n a s s o c i a t e d i n d i v i d u a l behav ior and systemic events such as e l e c t o r a l r e a l i g n m e n t s . I f these, e x p e c t a t i o n s are not f u l f i l l e d we w i l l have to be very c a u t i o u s about us ing the theory to e x p l a i n these p o l i t i c a l phenomena in Canada. PLAN OF THE THESIS The i n v e s t i g a t i o n proceeds on two l e v e l s . The f i r s t i s an a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t ( A P C ) . a n a l y s i s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n u s i n g data from c r o s s - s e c t i o n s of the- Canadian e l e c t o r a t e drawn a f t e r the e l e c t i o n s of 1965, 1968, 1974, and 1979. S e c o n d l y , pane l data from the 1974-1979-1980 e l e c t i o n s t u d i e s are used to i n v e s t i g a t e p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among i n d i v i d u a l s over t i m e . The two approaches permit an examinat ion of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n from d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s . The APC a n a l y s i s searches for s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among i n d i v i d u a l s , whi l e the pane l a n a l y s i s examines p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l s . The major share of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s devoted to an APC a n a l y s i s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " R e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o h o r t and p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n and between age and p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y are expected from t h e o r y . Such an a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e s a l o n g - t e r m view of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n that cannot be o b t a i n e d in any other way. An advantage of the APC a n a l y s i s i s that i t a l l o w s for o ther p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s of p a r t y l o y a l t i e s to be taken i n t o a c c o u n t . T h i s i s important because a proper assessment of the u t i l i t y of the theory can be o b t a i n e d only when the 20 a l t e r n a t i v e s are a l s o c o n s i d e r e d . To do t h i s r e q u i r e s that age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t e f f e c t s be e s t i m a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . The m e t h o d o l o g i c a l o b s t a c l e s to such an e s t i m a t i o n are s e r i o u s and r e q u i r e some e x p l a n a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r i s concerned wi th method and t h e o r y . The method of APC a n a l y s i s used in t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d , and the problems a s s o c i a t e d with i t are d i s c u s s e d . F o l l o w i n g t h a t , the t h e o r e t i c a l arguments r e l a t i n g changes i n p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n and i n t e n s i t y to c o h o r t and age v a r i a t i o n are r e s t a t e d wi th g r e a t e r c l a r i t y and the competing e x p l a n a t i o n s and t h e i r l i n k a g e with demographic v a r i a t i o n are i n t r o d u c e d . T h i s sets the stage for the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y in Chapter III and p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n in Chapter IV. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l s i s p r e s e n t e d in Chapter V . P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s an a t t i t u d e h e l d by i n d i v i d u a l s and as su ch , i t i s best examined through an a n a l y s i s of pane l d a t a . In f a c t , the r e s u l t s of that a n a l y s i s are c r u c i a l to the c o n c l u s i o n s about the u t i l i t y of the theory in t h i s c o u n t r y . I t must be remembered however, that the p r o p e r t i e s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are the p r o d u c t s of proces se s o c c u r r i n g over long p e r i o d s of t ime , very o f t en over the e n t i r e l i f e of the i n d i v i d u a l , wh i l e the pane l data cover only a s i x - y e a r p e r i o d . On t h e i r own, the c o n t r i b u t i o n made by the p a n e l r e s u l t s to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the l o n g - t e r m dynamics 2 1 of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s l i m i t e d . But when viewed in c o n j u n c t i o n wi th the APC r e s u l t s , the combined e f f e c t i s p o w e r f u l . Taken t o g e t h e r , the r e s u l t s of both the c o h o r t and t h e pane l a n a l y s e s show that in many important ways the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n does not p r o v i d e a s a t i s f a c t o r y account of Canadian p a r t y l o y a l t i e s . But the r e s u l t s arc-c o n s i s t e n t wi th the h i s t o r i c a l performance of each of t h e p a r t i e s . Chapter VI c o n c l u d e s w i th an assessment of t h e u t i l i t y of the theory in Canada and o f f e r s some o b s e r v a t i o n s on p a r t i s a n s h i p in Canada. 22 Footnotes 1. Angus C a m p b e l l , P h i l i p Converse , Warren M i l l e r and Donald S tokes , The American V o t e r , (New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1960), p . 121. 2. I b i d . , p . 121. 3. L e d f o r d J . B i s c h o f f , I n t e r p r e t i n g P e r s o n a l i t y T h e o r i e s , (New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1 964) , p . 65"! 4. Warren M i l l e r , "The C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Use of Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a S t imulus to P o l i t i c a l I n q u i r y , " in Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe and Dennis F a r l i e , ( e d s . ) , Party  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond: R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of V o t i n g  and P a r t y C o m p e t i t i o n , op. c i t . , p . 22. 5. D a v i d Knoke, Change and C o n t i n u i t y in American  P o l i t i c s : The S o c i a l Bases of P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s , ( B a i t imore: Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1976 ), p . 2. 6. Robert D. Hess and J u d i t h V . Torney , The Development of  P o l i t i c a l A t t i t u d e s in C h i l d r e n , (Ch icago , A l d i n e , 1967 ) , p . 21 . 7. D a v i d Knoke, op. c i t . , p . 7. 8. For- an e x c e l l e n t study of the t r a n s m i s s i o n of p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s from parent to c h i l d see M. Kent Jennings and R i c h a r d G . N i e m i , The P o l i t i c a l C h a r a c t e r of  A d o l e s c e n c e : The In f luence of F a m i l i e s and S c h o o l s , ( P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974). 9. Warren M i l l e r , op . c i t . , p . 23. 10. Campbel l et a l . , op. c i t . , p . 128. 11. Warren M i l l e r , op . c i t . , p . 23. 12. Campbel l et a l . , op. c i t . , p . 133. 13. I b i d . , p . 164-5. 14. But E l k i n s observes that i f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n works as a f i l t e r , i t does so very i m p e r f e c t l y in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . See Dav id J . E l k i n s , "Issues Spaces , Par ty P r o x i m i t y , and V o t i n g , " Paper prepared for ' the Annual Meet ing of the American P o l i t i c a l Sc i ences A s s o c i a t i o n , Denver , 1982, p . 7. 23 15. Campbel l et a l . , p . 135. 16. I b i d . , p . 135. 17. I b i d . , p . 148. 18. R i c h a r d G. Niemi and H e r b e r t F . W e i s b e r g , ( e d s . ) , C o n t r o v e r s i e s in American V o t i n g B e h a v i o u r , (San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeman and Company, 1976), p . 303. McClosky and Dahlgren f i n d that i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y i s c o n t i n g e n t on a number of f a c t o r s both w i t h i n and o u t s i d e the f a m i l y . In p a r t i c u l a r , the i n f l u e n c e of p r i m a r y groups o ther than the p a r e n t a l f a m i l y i s an important f a c t o r which bears on the i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y l o y a l t i e s . See H e r b e r t McClosky and H a r o l d E . D a h l g r e n , "Primary Group I n f l u e n c e on P a r t y L o y a l t y , " American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e  Review, (Sept . 1959), p . 757-776. 19. Niemi and W e i s b e r g , op. c i t . , p . 302. 20. T h i s d e p i c t i o n n e g l e c t s the e f f e c t of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on the p e r c e p t i o n s of p a r t y . See R i c h a r d A. Brody and Benjamin Page, "Comment: The Assessment of P o l i c y V o t i n g " , American P o l i t i c a l  Sc i ence Review, (1975), p . 450-458; and Gregory Markus and P h i l i p Converse , "A Dynamic S imultaneous E q u a t i o n Model of E l e c t o r a l C h o i c e " , American P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence  Review, (1979), p . 1055-1070. 21. P h i l i p Converse , "The Concept of the Normal V o t e , " in Campbel l et a l . , ( e d s . ) , E l e c t i o n s and The P o l i t i c a l  O r d e r , I b i d . , p. 9-39. 22. Ian Budge, " I n t r o d u c t i o n : P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond", in Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe and Dennis F a r l i e , ( e d s . ) , P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond:  R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of V o t i n g and P a r t y C o m p e t i t i o n , op. ' c i t . , p . 7 . 23. See K r i s t i A n d e r s e n , " G e n e r a t i o n , P a r t i s a n S h i f t , and Real ignment: A Glance Back to the New D e a l " , i n Norman N i e , Sidney V e r b a , and John R. P e t r o c i k , The Changing  American V o t e r , (Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979), p . 7 4 - 9 5 . 24. Angus C a m p b e l l , "A C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of P r e s i d e n t i a l E l e c t i o n s " i n Angus C a m p b e l l , P h i l i p Converse , Warren M i l l e r and Donald S tokes , E l e c t i o n s and the P o l i t i c a l O r d e r , (New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1966), p . 40-62. 24 25. P h i l i p C o n v e r s e , The Dynamics of P a r t y Support ;  C o h o r t - A n a l y z i n g P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , ( B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1976), p . 131. 26. R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , " P o l i t i c a l G e n e r a t i o n s and P o l i t i c a l M o b i l i z a t i o n " , Paper p r e p a r e d for the Conference on G e n e r a t i o n s and P o l i t i c a l Change, Quebec C i t y , 1986, p . 5; see a l s o D a v i d B u t l e r and Donald S t o k e s , P o l i t i c a l Change in B r i t a i n , (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1969), p . 63. 27. Converse (1976), op . c i t . , p . 12; P h i l i p Converse , "Of Time and P a r t i s a n S t a b i l i t y " , Comparat ive P o l i t i c a l  S t u d i e s , ( J u l y , 1969), p .139 -171 . 28. John M e i s e l , Working Papers on Canadian P o l i t i c s , ( M o n t r e a l : McGi11-Queens U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973), p . 67. 29. Pau l Sniderman, H . D . F o r b e s , and Ian M e l z e r , "Party L o y a l t y and E l e c t o r a l V o l a t i l i t y : A Study of the Canadian Par ty System", Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l  S c i e n c e , V o l . 7, (1974), p . 286. 30. See Sniderman et a l . , i b i d . ; Jane J e n s o n , "Party L o y a l t y i n Canada: The Ques t ion of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n " , Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 8 (December, 1975), p .543-553; Dav id J . E l k i n s , "Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : A C o n c e p t u a l A n a l y s i s " , Canadian  J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 11 (June, 1978), p . 419-35. For competing v e r s i o n s of the importance of the i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to the maintenance of the r e l i g i o u s c l eavage in Canada see W. P. I r v i n e , " E x p l a i n i n g the R e l i g i o u s B a s i s of the Canadian P a r t i s a n I d e n t i t y : Success on the T h i r d T r y " , Canadian J o u r n a l of  P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 7 (1974), p . 560-63; and R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , "The R e p r o d u c t i o n of the R e l i g i o u s Cleavage i n Canadian E l e c t i o n s " , Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 18 (1985), p . 9 9 - 1 1 3 . 31. J e n s o n , i b i d . , p a s s i m . 32. E l k i n s , i b i d . , p a s s i m . 33. R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , "Problems i n the C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Comparison of Mass P a r t i s a n s h i p " , Paper prepared f o r the Midwest P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n Annual M e e t i n g , C h i c a g o , 1986. 34. Lawrence Leduc , H a r o l d C l a r k e , Jane J e n s o n , and Jon Pammett, " P a r t i s a n I n s t a b i l i t y in Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study", American P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence Review, 25 78 (1984) , p .470-84 . 35. J o h n s t o n , op. c i t . 36. Jerome B l a c k , "Immigrant A d a p t i o n in Canada: Some T e n t a t i v e F i n d i n g s " , Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l  S c i e n c e , 15 (March, 1 982), p . 3 - 2 7 . 37. R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , " P o l i t i c a l G e n e r a t i o n s and E l e c t o r a l M o b i l i z a t i o n in Canada", Paper p r e p a r e d for the Conference on G e n e r a t i o n s and P o l i t i c a l Change, Quebec C i t y , 1986. 26 CHAPTER II METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE AGE-PERIOD-COHORT ANALYSIS OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION T h i s c h a p t e r i s d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t o u t l i n e s the method of a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s used in t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The second d i s c u s s e s a n a l y t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . I t pre sen t s the e x p e c t a t i o n s for the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n be fore p r o c e e d i n g to a r t i c u l a t e the e x p e c t a t i o n s r a i s e d by s e v e r a l competing e x p l a n a t i o n s for the p a t t e r n of aggregate p a r t y l o y a l t i e s . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s In p r i n c i p l e , any age s t r u c t u r e c o u l d be produced by any one or any combinat ion of three demographic p r o c e s s e s : a g i n g (or l i f e c y c l e e f f e c t s ) , g e n e r a t i o n (or cohort e f f e c t s ) , and s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s (or p e r i o d e f f e c t s ) . The purpose of a cohor t a n a l y s i s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s to determine i f these r e l a t i o n s h i p s are p r e s e n t in Canadian d a t a . A c o h o r t may be any group of i n d i v i d u a l s who e x p e r i e n c e d the same s i g n i f i c a n t l i f e event w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d of t i m e . B i r t h i s u s u a l l y the s i g n i f i c a n t event (hence the term b i r t h c o h o r t ) . With r e s p e c t to par ty i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the s i g n i f i c a n t event i s the time of e n t r y 27 i n t o the e l e c t o r a t e . An i n d i v i d u a l ' s sense of p a r t i s a n s h i p i s thought to be a f f e c t e d by the p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s which are present d u r i n g the e a r l y p o r t i o n of the p o l i t i c a l l i f e c y c l e . 1 Aging e f f e c t s are i n f l u e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d wi th movement through the l i f e c y c l e . In g e n e r a l , t h i s may r e f e r d i r e c t l y to b i o l o g i c a l ag ing or to proces se s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p s y c h o l o g i c a l or s o c i a l a g i n g . With re spec t to p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g with a p a r t y might be a f f e c t e d by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p o s i t i o n in the l i f e c y c l e . 2 L i f e c y c l e p o s i t i o n i s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d an important i n d i c a t o r of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 3 P e r i o d e f f e c t s are the i n f l u e n c e s present d u r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d of t i m e . Such i n f l u e n c e s a f f e c t the immediate behav ior of i n d i v i d u a l s but ' may have l a s t i n g consequences for subsequent b e h a v i o r s . E f f e c t s which subsequent ly r e g i s t e r as c o h o r t e f f e c t s may look l i k e p e r i o d e f f e c t s when they happen. For example, Converse argues that a s e r i e s of p e r i o d e f f e c t s , in p a r t i c u l a r the p r o t e s t a g a i n s t the Vietnam War and the Watergate s c a n d a l , had a n e g a t i v e impact on the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the U n i t e d S ta te s but o n l y for young people was the e f f e c t a l a s t i n g one." Both the s t r e n g t h and the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may be r e s p o n s i v e to s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s ( that i s , p e r i o d e f f e c t s ) . 28 For the purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s , data from four n a t i o n a l e l e c t i o n s t u d i e s 5 (conducted in 1965, 1968, 1974 and 1979) were merged i n t o one l a r g e f i l e y i e l d i n g a combined t o t a l of 10,116 c a s e s . Age i s the respondents ' age at the time of i n t e r v i e w , c o h o r t i s the year of b i r t h , and p e r i o d i s the year of the s t u d y . The method used i n the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s i s one suggested by Mason et a l . 6 I t i s a m u l t i v a r i a t e model tha t a l l o w s age, p e r i o d , and cohort to be e s t i m a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . The r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of each demographic v a r i a b l e on p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n can be a s s e s s e d . Moreover , the s t r u c t u r e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p can be d e t e r m i n e d . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y important because t h e o r e t i c a l arguments p r e d i c t that the r e l a t i o n s h i p s should take p a r t i c u l a r forms. A f u r t h e r advantage of t h i s approach i s that i t a l l o w s other independent v a r i a b l e s to be e a s i l y - added to the e s t i m a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l c o m p o s i t i o n of the age and cohor t groups can be c o n t r o l l e d f o r . Moreover , v a r i a b l e s of s u b s t a n t i v e i n t e r e s t can be e n t e r e d i n t o the e q u a t i o n p e r m i t t i n g an assessment of the e f f e c t s of age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t net of the e f f e c t s of o ther r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . 29 The formal s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the model i s : y = b + Eb^P; + E b j C j + L b K A k + L\XL where: P* i s a set of dummy v a r i a b l e s for the e l e c t i o n y e a r s , or the p e r i o d s ; C j i s a set of dummy v a r i a b l e s for c o h o r t s ; A ( < i s a set of dummy v a r i a b l e s for c h r o n o l o g i c a l age groups; and Xj_ i s a set of v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g e lements of the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . In t h i s method, age, p e r i o d , and cohor t are t r e a t e d as a s e r i e s of d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s i n s t e a d of as c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s . Each demographic v a r i a b l e i s p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o a s e r i e s of d i s c r e t e c a t e g o r i e s . Each c a t e g o r y i s c o n s t r u c t e d as a dichotomous (dummy) v a r i a b l e . For example, age i s t r e a t e d as f o l l o w s : a dichotomous v a r i a b l e i s c r e a t e d where those who are 18 to 20 years o l d are coded 1 and a l l o t h e r s are coded as 0. A second dummy v a r i a b l e codes those 21 to 23 as 1 and a l l o t h e r s 0. A t h i r d dummy v a r i a b l e would c o n t a i n s t i l l another age group , and so on . The end r e s u l t i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s e r i e s of dummy v a r i a b l e s that cover the e n t i r e age span . In a s i m i l a r manner, a s e r i e s of dummy v a r i a b l e s are c o n s t r u c t e d for c o h o r t and p e r i o d . T h i s produces an age d i m e n s i o n , a c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n , and a p e r i o d dimension where each dimens ion c o n t a i n s a s e r i e s of dummy v a r i a b l e s . The number of y e a r s encompassed by each c o h o r t and age 30 group i s based on the d e s i r a b i l i t y of d i v i d i n g the r e s p e c t i v e d imensions i n t o as f i n e l y graded groups as p o s s i b l e whi l e keeping a s u f f i c i e n t number of cases in each group to a l l o w some c o n f i d e n c e in the r e s u l t s . F i n e l y graded c o h o r t and age groups presen t the best p i c t u r e of t h e p a t t e r n a c r o s s each d i m e n s i o n . In most of the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s , the age and c o h o r t d imens ions are p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o three year groups , a l t h o u g h s i x year groups are used where case numbers are s m a l l . The e s t i m a t i o n produces a c o e f f i c i e n t for each dummy v a r i a b l e w i t h i n each d i m e n s i o n . The p a t t e r n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and age, p e r i o d , and cohor t can be determined from an i n s p e c t i o n of t h e va lues of the c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s a p a r t i c u l a r d imens ion . T h i s a l l o w s for comparison of the t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected wi th the e m p i r i c a l l y observed p a t t e r n s . The r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of age> p e r i o d , and cohor t as t o t a l d imens ions on p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n can be determined from the amount of v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d by each d i m e n s i o n . T h i s i s c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : (R 2 - R 2 * ) = net v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d where R 2 i s the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n for the e s t i m a t i o n wi th a l l d imens ions i n c l u d e d ; R 2 * i s the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n for the e s t i m a t i o n wi th one d imens ion exc luded; thus (R 2 - R 2 * ) i s the net v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d by the omi t t ed d i m e n s i o n . 31 T h i s i s c a l c u l a t e d four t imes in each e s t i m a t i o n , once each for age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t , and once for the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. In s h o r t , the purpose of the a n a l y s i s i s (a) to e s t imate c o e f f i c i e n t s for the dummy v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n each d imens ion to determine the p a t t e r n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p a c r o s s each d imens ion; and (b) to e s t imate the net e f f e c t of each dimens ion on p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to determine the r e l a t i v e importance of the competing arguments which p u r p o r t to e x p l a i n p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . However, there are two o b s t a c l e s to the a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t i s an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n problem; age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t are i n h e r e n t l y confounded . Where the demographic terms are expressed l i n e a r l y , each i s a l i n e a r combinat ion of the remain ing two terms . For example, Age = P e r i o d - Cohort Cohort = P e r i o d - Age P e r i o d = Cohort + Age The l i n e a r dependency makes i t i m p o s s i b l e to e s t imate the separate e f f e c t s of the three v a r i a b l e s u s i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s of m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . 7 Mason et a l . show that t h i s problem can be c i r c u m v e n t e d i f the v a l u e s of the c o e f f i c i e n t s of some dummy v a r i a b l e s are assumed to be e q u a l . 8 To a r r i v e at a s o l u t i o n to an e q u a t i o n that i n c l u d e s a l l three d imens ions (age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t ) , a minimum of two of the dummy v a r i a b l e s 32 of a p a r t i c u l a r d imens ion must be c o n s t r a i n e d to be equa l and exc luded from the r e g r e s s i o n . By so d o i n g , the three demographic terms are no longer confounded and the c o e f f i c i e n t s of the dummy v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n the three d imensions become e s t i m a b l e . The second problem i s e c o n o m e t r i c , in p a r t i c u l a r the c o l l i n e a r i t y between the age and cohort d i m e n s i o n s . C r i t i c s of t h i s method p o i n t out that measurement e r r o r or m i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n of c o n s t r a i n t s can l e a d to h i g h l y i n a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s . 9 However, the problem of measurement e r r o r i s not p e c u l i a r to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r method. Measurement e r r o r may l e a d to i n a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s but i t need not n e c e s s a r i l y do s o . 1 0 Mason et a l . r e c o g n i z e d that the p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r a i n t s s e l e c t e d , can a f f e c t not on ly the c o e f f i c i e n t s to be e s t i m a t e d , but can a l s o a f f e c t which d imens ions are s i g n i f i c a n t . 1 1 To get around t h i s , they suggest e s t i m a t i n g a v a r i e t y of models u s i n g d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r a i n t s . S i m i l a r i t y of r e s u l t s from d i f f e r e n t models i n c r e a s e s one's c o n f i d e n c e in the r e s u l t s . At l e a s t one c r i t i c of t h i s method a g r e e s . Rodgers s t a t e s that " i f each of the r e s t r i c t i o n s i s j u s t i f i e d on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds and not based on i n s p e c t i o n of the d a t a , then one ' s c o n f i d e n c e in the e s t i m a t e s i n c r e a s e s to the extent that there i s agreement i n the e s t imates d e r i v e d from each of the c o n s t r a i n t s . " 1 2 In the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s ad jacent age or c o h o r t 33 c a t e g o r i e s are c o n s t r a i n e d to be e q u a l . I f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v a r i e s by age, i t i s reasonable to assume that respondents who are c l o s e in age should be more l i k e l y to e x h i b i t s i m i l a r p a r t y a t tachments than respondents of very d i f f e r e n t ages . The same l o g i c a p p l i e s w i th re spec t to c o h o r t . The p a r t y t i e s of those born in a d j a c e n t years are more l i k e l y to be s i m i l a r than the p a r t y at tachments of those whose b i r t h dates are s e p a r a t e d by many y e a r s . Respondents who grow up in s i m i l a r h i s t o r i c a l t imes w i l l be exposed to common i n f l u e n c e s at the same p o i n t s in t h e i r l i f e . T h i s i s not p o s s i b l e for people born in very d i f f e r e n t e r a s . In s h o r t , some c a t e g o r i e s must be c o n s t r a i n e d to be e q u a l i f t h i s method of cohor t a n a l y s i s i s to be employed. C o n s t r a i n i n g a d j a c e n t age or c o h o r t groups to be equa l assumes tha t these groups are l i k e l y to e x h i b i t s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s on the dependent v a r i a b l e . T h i s approach does the l e a s t v i o l e n c e to the t h e o r y . The recommendation that a number of models wi th d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r a i n t s be e s t i m a t e d i s f o l l owed h e r e . E i g h t models are e s t imated f o r each a n a l y s i s and the c r i t e r i a of c o n s i s t e n c y of r e s u l t s a c r o s s models i s used . Whi le each a n a l y s i s does produce some v a r i a t i o n in the r e s u l t s a c r o s s models , in most cases there i s enough s i m i l a r i t y of r e s u l t s to warrant a s u b s t a n t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s based on the p a t t e r n produced by the e s t imates for the dummy v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n each d i m e n s i o n , and on the 34 c o n t r i b u t i o n made by each d imens ion to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Competing e x p l a n a t i o n s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n suggest a" r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t . The r e s u l t s of the APC a n a l y s e s w i l l in form us as to which of these arguments are supported in the Canadian case . EXPLAINING AGGREGATE PARTY LOYALTIES: THE THEORY OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION AND ITS COMPETITORS The Theory of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n / In c o u n t r i e s wi th a s t a b l e p o l i t i c a l system and an extended h i s t o r y of democrat ic e l e c t i o n s , 1 3 most i n d i v i d u a l s are thought to undergo a common p r o c e s s of p a r t i s a n devlopment over t h e i r l i f e c y c l e . P o l i t i c a l man moves through four s tages over h i s l i f e - "his i n f a n t innocence of the e x i s t e n c e of p o l i t i c s . . . . . ; h i s c h i l d h o o d , a d o l e s c e n t or e a r l y a d u l t years when he f i r s t became aware of p o l i t i c s ; h i s l a t e r a d u l t years in which p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n c r e a s e s and p a r t y a t t i t u d e s h a r d e n . . . . ; and h i s o l d age when, though h i s p a r t i s a n a l l e g i a n c e p r o b a b l y remains unchanged, h i s a t t e n t i o n to p o l i t i c s d e c l i n e s towards r e l a t i v e i n d i f f e r e n c e . " 1 " Canada e x h i b i t s the aggregate requirements necessary for t h i s process of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i s a n development to 35 o c c u r . They i n c l u d e a s t a b l e p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m , a l o n g h i s t o r y o f d e m o c r a t i c e l e c t i o n s , and p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s t h a t h a v e c o m p e t e d i n t h e e l e c t o r a l a r e n a f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d o f t i m e . T h e s e f e a t u r e s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e p a r t y l o y a l t i e s o f C a n a d i a n s may be t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r o c e s s d e s c r i b e d by t h e t h e o r y o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The t h e o r y s u g g e s t s t h a t d u r i n g t h e i m p r e s s i o n a b l e y e a r s o f a d o l e s c e n c e a nd e a r l y a d u l t h o o d , most i n d i v i d u a l s d e v e l o p a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t i e w i t h a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . The d i r e c t i o n of t h e t i e i s d e t e r m i n e d l a r g e l y by t h e d i r e c t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s t o w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s e x p o s e d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . The i n i t i a l p a r t y t i e s o o n s o l i d i f i e s a n d i n c r e a s e s i n i n t e n s i t y w i t h i t s r e p e a t e d use' o v e r t i m e . As t h e p a r t y t i e s t r e n g t h e n s , t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f i t s c h a n g i n g d e c r e a s e s . T h i s i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n w o r k s t o c o n s e r v e t h e p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t o v e r t h e l i f e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s means t h a t i f we w a n t e d t o e x p l a i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h e l d by an i n d i v i d u a l who was 60 y e a r s o l d , we w o u l d n e e d t o know t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s t h a t he was e x p o s e d t o i n h i s t e e n s and e a r l y t w e n t i e s , when he was i n t h e f o r m a t i v e s t a g e o f p a r t i s a n d e v e l o p m e n t . 1 5 But i f we w a n t e d t o e x p l a i n t h e s t r e n g t h o f h i s p a r t y t i e , t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h a t he had been an i d e n t i f i e r w o u l d be t h e c r u c i a l p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 6 T h i s v i e w o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p a r t y t i e i s 36 c o n s i s t e n t wi th the more g e n e r a l assumption that "group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of the p r o p o r t i o n of a p e r s o n ' s l i f e he has been a s s o c i a t e d wi th the group. The longer the person t h i n k s of h i m s e l f as be long ing to a p a r t y , the s t r o n g e r h i s sense of l o y a l t y to i t w i l l b e c o m e . " 1 7 Campbel l et a l . d e s c r i b e t h i s process" in the f o l l o w i n g way: "Once a person has a c q u i r e d some embryonic p a r t y a t tachment , i t i s easy for him to d i s c o v e r that most events in the ambiguous wor ld of p o l i t i c s redound to the c r e d i t of h i s chosen p a r t y . As h i s p e r c e p t i o n of h i s p a r t y ' s v i r t u e ga ins momentum in t h i s manner, so h i s l o y a l t y to i t s t r e n g t h e n s , and t h i s fact in t u r n i n c r e a s e s the p r o b a b i l i t y that f u t u r e events w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d in a f a s h i o n tha t supports h i s p a r t i s a n i n c l i n a t i o n . " 1 8 At the aggregate l e v e l , i t must be remembered that the proces s of p a r t i s a n a c q u i s i t i o n and development occurs s i m u l t a n e o u s l y for members of each b i r t h c o h o r t . Those who are young at the same h i s t o r i c a l time are exposed to common p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s . In t u r n , these i n f l u e n c e s w i l l have a b e a r i n g on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y at tachments a c q u i r e d by the c o h o r t . T h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n should be conserved over time through the s t r e n g t h e n i n g of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y t i e s . 1 9 Each s u c c e s s i v e g e n e r a t i o n of v o t e r s undergoes the same process of p a r t i s a n development . G e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y at tachments may occur i f d i f f e r e n t g e n e r a t i o n s have been exposed to a d i f f e r e n t set of 37 p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s d u r i n g t h e i r f o r m a t i v e y e a r s . E a c h p a r t y ' s s h a r e o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i n a c o h o r t s h o u l d be a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s o p e r a t i n g when t h e c o h o r t was y o u n g . The d i r e c t i o n o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a l w a y s a c o h o r t m a t t e r . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s a r g u m e n t , h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s of p a r t y s u p p o r t s h o u l d be e v i d e n t i n c u r r e n t p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s . The a g g r e g a t e s t r e n g t h o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a c o h o r t o f v o t e r s i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h e c o h o r t h a s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e e l e c t o r a l p r o c e s s . Age i s commonly u s e d a s a s u r r o g a t e i n d i c a t o r of t h i s . C o n s e q u e n t l y s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d show a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a g e . O l d e r members o f t h e e l e c t o r a t e s h o u l d a l w a y s e x h i b i t a h i g h e r l e v e l o f a g g r e g a t e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h t h a n t h e y o u n g . The s t r o n g v e r s i o n of t h i s a r g u ment s e e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t ween age and p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y as t a k i n g t h e f o r m of a l e a r n i n g c u r v e , s u c h a s t h e one shown i n F i g u r e 11 — 1 . 2 0 I n c r e a s e s i n p a r t y s t r e n g t h o c c u r o v e r t h e l i f e c y c l e b u t n o t s t e a d i l y . R a t h e r , t h e b u l k of t h e g a i n s t a k e p l a c e i n t h e e a r l y y e a r s a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e p a r t y t i e . H owever, most e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s e s f i n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o be more l i n e a r t h a n c u r v i l i n e a r . C o n v e r s e a t t r i b u t e s t h i s d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l y e x p e c t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t age s e r v e s a s an i m p e r f e c t i n d i c a t o r o f t h e t r u e v a r i a b l e of i n t e r e s t , w h i c h i s t h e l e n g t h of t i m e t h a t t h e Strength Fvjurt IM : Hypothetical Relationship Between Age And Strength of Identification Source: P. Converse, The Purumtos o f Par tu Support. (Bev*rly HiHs: Sage Publications, 1976), p. 44. 39 i n d i v i d u a l has f e l t some p s y c h o l o g i c a l attachment t o a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y . 2 1 The t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n l e a d s t o c e r t a i n e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the a n a l y s e s i n Chapters I I I and IV. In the APC a n a l y s i s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h (Chapter I I I ) , t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n p r e d i c t s t h a t we s h o u l d f i n d the f o l l o w i n g : 1) The e s t i m a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the age groups a c r o s s the e n t i r e dimension s h o u l d take e i t h e r of the f o l l o w i n g forms: a) a c u r v i l i n e a r form s i m i l a r t o the l e a r n i n g .curve shown F i g u r e 11 — 1 . Moving from young to o l d , the c o e f f i c i e n t s s h o u l d a t f i r s t i n c r e a s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n magnitude, then more g r a d u a l l y t h rough the middle age groups and l e v e l out among the o l d e s t age groups. b) a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . Moving from young to o l d , the c o e f f i c i e n t s s h o u l d i n c r e a s e l i n e a r l y a c r o s s the age d i m e n s i o n . 2) Of the t h r e e demographic terms, o n l y age s h o u l d have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y . In the a n a l y s e s , e i t h e r r e s u l t 1(a) or 1(b) may be taken as support f o r t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of the s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , but the f i r s t i s more i m p r e s s i v e than the second. At minimum, t h e r e must.be a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and s t r e n g t h . In the APC a n a l y s i s of the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (Chapter IV) the t h e o r y p r e d i c t s t h a t we s h o u l d f i n d the f o l l o w i n g : 1) Where p a r t y f o r t u n e s have f l u c t u a t e d h i s t o r i c a l l y , the p a t t e r n of the e s t i m a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s the c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n s h o u l d r e f l e c t the l o n g - t e r m p a t t e r n of su p p o r t f o r the p a r t y . The l i k e l i h o o d t h a t young i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l come t o i d e n t i f y w i t h a p a r t y s h o u l d be g r e a t e r i n times when the p a r t y ' s e l e c t o r a l performance i s s t r o n g e r than when i t i s weaker. In 40 Chapter IV, we w i l l examine the e l e c t o r a l r e c o r d of each p a r t y to a r r i v e at more s p e c i f i c e x p e c t a t i o n s wi th re spec t to c o h o r t e f f e c t s . 2) Of the three demographic f a c t o r s , on ly c o h o r t shou ld make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th any p a r t y . But t h i s w i l l be so on ly where the p a r t y ' s support has f l u c t u a t e d over the l o n g - t e r m . In cases where the p a r t y has performed c o n s i s t e n t l y over the l o n g - h a u l , no v a r i a t i o n in p a r t y d i r e c t i o n i s expected a c r o s s any of the demographic d i m e n s i o n s . OTHER EXPLANATIONS OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION Al though the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s w e l l - a r g u e d and has c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t u i t i v e a p p e a l , i t i s p o s s i b l e that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are the product of proces se s other than those d e s c r i b e d by the t h e o r y . A proper assessment of the u t i l i t y of the theory in Canada cannot be reached without t a k i n g the o ther p o s s i b i l i t i e s in a c c o u n t . Competing Accounts of P a r t i s a n I n t e n s i t y The s t r e n g t h of attachment to a p a r t y may r e f l e c t the i n t e n s i t y of the p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s at work d u r i n g the format ive years of p a r t i s a n development . Around the time of the development of the i n i t i a l p a r t y t i e , the i n d i v i d u a l a l s o deve lops a sense of how s t r o n g l y he or she f e e l s about that t i e . E r a s in which the p o l i t i c a l debate i s v i g o r o u s and p a r t y c l eavages are c l e a r l y d e f i n e d might produce more 4 1 i n t e n s e p a r t i s a n s than eras i n which these f e a t u r e s are a b s e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , the era i n which the i n d i v i d u a l (or a c o h o r t of i n d i v i d u a l s ) grows up has a l a s t i n g e f f e c t on the i n t e n s i t y of p a r t i s a n commitment. T h i s argument sees p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y as a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r . Cohort d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t y s t r e n g t h shou l d be present i f the tenor of the p o l i t i c a l debate has v a r i e d h i s t o r i c a l l y . 2 2 The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t y s t r e n g t h might be a g e n e r a t i o n a l e f f e c t . The s t r o n g e r l o y a l t i e s of o l d e r people may r e f l e c t the p o l i t i c s of an e a r l i e r era in which p a r t i s a n f e e l i n g s were more i n t e n s e than in recent t i m e s . 2 3 If so , the a n a l y s i s in Chapter III should show: 1) An i n c r e a s e in the magnitude of the e s t imated c o e f f i c i e n t s moving from l a t e r to e a r l i e r c o h o r t s . 2) The cohor t d imens ion to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y . Another e x p l a n a t i o n i s that p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y responds to s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s . In an a n a l y s i s of American pane l d a t a , Brody f i n d s tha t the s t r e n g t h component of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s s t a b l e than the d i r e c t i o n component, f l u c t u a t i n g over a f a i r l y shor t p e r i o d of time wi th the chang ing p e r c e p t i o n s of v o t e r s ' . - t o i s s u e , l e a d e r , and c a n d i d a t e a p p e a l s . T h i s l eads him to conclude that "the s t r e n g t h responses to the p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n probes are a composi te of o l d h a b i t s and new impress ions and are a judgement about the presen t a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the 42 p a r t y . " 2 " T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y has not been i n v e s t i g a t e d i n C a n a d a / If p a r t y s t r e n g t h f l u c t u a t e s in the s h o r t - t e r m , we shou ld f i n d the f o l l o w i n g : * 1) The aggregate s t r e n g t h of attachment to each p a r t y s h o u l d f l u c t u a t e wi th the s h o r t - t e r m performance of the p a r t y . Thus , some d i f f e r e n c e in the c o e f f i c i e n t s for each survey year might be p r e s e n t . 2) The p e r i o d d imens ion should have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . Competing Accounts of. the D i r e c t i o n of Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n An i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y may be a s h o r t - t e r m at tachment . If so , whether a p a r t y t i e i s m a i n t a i n e d or abandoned depends p r i m a r i l y on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s assessment of the immediate performance of the p a r t y . C l a r k e et a l . for i n s t a n c e , f i n d a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of p a r t i s a n i n s t a b i l i t y and argue that many o s t e n s i b l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s r e f l e c t " s h o r t - r u n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of p a r t y performance and p o s i t i o n in the c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n . " 2 5 If p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are responses to c u r r e n t p a r t y per formance , the a n a l y s i s of the d i r e c t i o n component in Chapter IV shou ld produce the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s : 1) The e s t i m a t e s of the y e a r l y c o e f f i c i e n t s for each p a r t y shou l d vary wi th the e l e c t o r a l showing of the p a r t y from one survey year to the nex t . Such a r e s u l t i n d i c a t e s that the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th a p a r t y f l u c t u a t e s wi th immediate p a r t y per formance . 2) The p e r i o d d imens ion sh ou ld have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t 43 on the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that l i f e c y c l e p r o c e s s e s might a f f e c t the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Par ty l o y a l t i e s may change in a s s o c i a t i o n wi th changes i n a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r s as one grows o l d e r . I t i s commonly assumed that c o n s e r v a t i s m i n c r e a s e s w i th age. S ta tus changes which o f t en accompany the ag ing p r o c e s s may l ead to i n c r e a s e d c o n s e r v a t i s m . 2 6 Or perhaps i n c r e a s i n g c o n s e r v a t i s m may be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to b i o l o g i c a l a g i n g . Whatever the c a s e , the argument p r e d i c t s that the i n c i d e n c e of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th a p a r t y of the r i g h t should be g r e a t e r among o l d e r people than the young. If so , we shou ld f i n d the f o l l o w i n g : 1) The p a t t e r n of the c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s the age d imens ion should d i f f e r between p a r t i e s depending on t h e i r p o s i t i o n on the i d e o l o g i c a l spectrum. The l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the NDP should be g r e a t e r among the young than the o l d . The o p p o s i t e shou ld be the case for C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . 2) The age d imens ion should have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . DESCRIPTION OF INDICATORS USED IN CHAPTERS III AND IV The v a r i a b l e s used in the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t ana lyses i n C h a p t e r s III and IV are o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d a s ' f o l l o w s : Dependent V a r i a b l e s - The measure of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s based on the f o l l o w i n g sequence of q u e s t i o n s in the 1974 and 1979 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s . 2 7 44 a) " T h i n k i n g of f e d e r a l p o l i t i c s , do you u s u a l l y th ink of y o u r s e l f as L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , NDP, S o c i a l C r e d i t or what?" b) "How s t r o n g l y ( p a r t y named) do you f e e l , very s t r o n g l y , f a i r l y s t r o n g l y or not very s t r o n g l y ? " c) ( I f " r e f u s e d , " "don't know," "independent" or "none" in (a) " S t i l l t h i n k i n g of f e d e r a l p o l i t i c s , do you g e n e r a l l y t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as be ing a l i t t l e c l o s e r to one of the p a r t i e s than to the o t h e r s ? " d) (I f "yes") "Which p a r t y i s t h a t ? " In Chapter- I I I , the dependent v a r i a b l e i s an o r d i n a l s c a l e measuring the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i s based on responses to q u e s t i o n (b) above. N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s and i d e n t i f i e r s who f a i l to choose one of the three c a t e g o r i e s of i n t e n s i t y are exc luded from the a n a l y s i s . S t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s coded as f o l l o w s : 1= not very s t r o n g l y ; 2= f a i r l y s t r o n g l y ; 3= very s t r o n g l y . In Chapter IV , the dependent v a r i a b l e i s the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th one of the t h r e e major p a r t i e s - L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e or NDP. A s e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s i s performed for i d e n t i f i e r s wi th each of the t h r e e p a r t i e s . I d e n t i f i e r s w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y are s c o r e d 1, a l l o ther respondents i n c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s are s c o r e d 0. A respondent i s c l a s s i f i e d as an i d e n t i f i e r i f he or she gave a p a r t y response to e i t h e r q u e s t i o n (a) or ( d ) . That i s , " leaners" are t r e a t e d as i d e n t i f i e r s in t h i s a n a l y s i s . 45 In the APC a n a l y s i s of the d i r e c t i o n component of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the dependent v a r i a b l e i s d ichotomous ." The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l procedure for the a n a l y s i s of t h i s type of v a r i a b l e i s e i t h e r p r o b i t or l o g i t r a t h e r than r e g r e s s i o n . T h i s i s because o r d i n a r y l e a s t squares r e g r e s s i o n of a " l i m i t e d dependent v a r i a b l e r e s u l t s in b i a s e d e s t imates of the s tandard e r r o r s of the e s t imated c o e f f i c i e n t s . " 2 8 T h i s l eads to i n v a l i d h y p o t h e s i s t e s t s for p a r t i c u l a r c o e f f i c i e n t s . While acknowledging tha t p r o b i t or l o g i t i s the p r e f e r r e d a n a l y t i c a l t echnique i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , we p o i n t out that the cos t i s p r o h i b i t i v e g iven the s i z e of the database and the number of models that must be t e s t e d . Moreover , we are more i n t e r e s t e d in the p a t t e r n s that emerge a c r o s s the. age, c o h o r t and p e r i o d d imens ions than in the a c t u a l e s t i m a t e s of any p a r t i c u l a r c o e f f i c i e n t s . For these reasons , we forego the use of p r o b i t or l o g i t . O r d i n a r y l e a s t squares a l l o w s us to observe whatever p a t t e r n s may be present a c r o s s the age, p e r i o d or c o h o r t d imens ions even though the e s t imates of p a r t i c u l a r c o e f f i c i e n t s may not be e n t i r e l y a c c u r a t e . A d d i t i o n a l Independent V a r i a b l e s The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s are used i n the a n a l y s e s in both Chapter III and I V . Gender i s used to c o n t r o l for the f a c t that women l i v e longer than men and t h e r e f o r e o l d e r c o h o r t s are l i k e l y to 46 c o n t a i n more women than men. In the a n a l y s i s women are coded 1, men are coded 0. S o c i a l s t a t u s i s e n t e r e d i n t o the a n a l y s i s as a means of c o n t r o l l i n g for the l i k e l i h o o d that s t a t u s d i f f e r s by c o h o r t and age. Three i n d i c a t o r s of s o c i a l s t a t u s are used. The f i r s t , e d u c a t i o n , i s an i n t e r v a l l e v e l v a r i a b l e measuring the number of years of s c h o o l i n g . 2 9 The second, o c c u p a t i o n , i s based on an o r d i n a l r a n k i n g of o c c u p a t i o n by P i n e o , P o r t e r , and M c R o b e r t s . 3 0 A l l c a t e g o r i e s are e n t e r e d as dummy v a r i a b l e s coded 1 f or those in a p a r t i c u l a r o c c u p a t i o n group , a l l e l s e 0. The r e f e r e n c e group on t h i s dimension are those not in the w o r k f o r c e . The t h i r d measure of s o c i a l s t a t u s i s s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l c l a s s and i s o b t a i n e d from the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : (a) "One hears a l o t about d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s . Do you ever t h i n k of y o u r s e l f as b e l o n g i n g to a s o c i a l c l a s s ? " (b) (If yes) "Which of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e s o c i a l c l a s s e s would you say you were i n : upper c l a s s , upper -midd le c l a s s , middle c l a s s , working c l a s s or lower c l a s s ? " (c) (I f "no" or "don't know" in (a)) " W e l l , i f you had to make a c h o i c e , would you say you were in the upper c l a s s , upper -midd le c l a s s , middle c l a s s , working c l a s s or lower c l a s s ? " Both the unforced and f o r c e d responses were combined i n t o a s i n g l e measure of s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l c l a s s and recoded so that upper and u p p e r - m i d d l e c lass=upper c l a s s , middle 47 c l a s s remains as i s , working and lower c las s=working c l a s s , and a l l o ther responses i n c l u d i n g m i s s i n g data are coded as "no c l a s s " . • Each c l a s s c a t e g o r y i s t r e a t e d as a dummy v a r i a b l e i n the a n a l y s e s where respondents choos ing a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s a coded 1, a l l o thers are coded 0. The suppressed ca tegory on t h i s d imens ion i s working c l a s s . To c o n t r o l for known r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in p o l i t i c a l p r e f e r e n c e s three dummy v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g r e g i o n are e n t e r e d i n t o the e s t i m a t i o n s . They are A t l a n t i c (Newfoundland, P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , Nova S c o t i a and New B r u n s w i c k ) , Quebec and the West (Mani toba , Saskatchewan, A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ) . O n t a r i o i s the suppressed c a t e g o r y on t h i s v a r i a b l e . To c o n t r o l f or r e l i g i o u s d i f f e r e n c e s in par ty a t tachments a s e r i e s of dummy v a r i a b l e s i s employed in the a n a l y s e s . They are C a t h o l i c ( i n c l u d i n g Roman and U k r a i n i a n C a t h o l i c and Greek O r t h o d o x ) , Other ( i n c l u d i n g those wi th a n o n - C a t h o l i c and n o n - P r o t e s t a n t r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n ) and those wi th "no r e l i g i o n . " P r o t e s t a n t s are the r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r y . 48 Footnote s 1. Angus Campbel l et a l . , The American V o t e r , a b r i d g e d e d i t i o n , (New Y o r k : John Wi l ey and Sons, 1964), p. 90. 2. Seymour M a r t i n L i p s e t , P o l i t i c a l Man, (Garden C i t y : Anchor Books, 1963), p . 282-286. 3. Angus Campbel l et a l . , op . c i t . , p . 94. 4. P h i l i p Converse , The Dynamics of P a r t y Support , ( B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1976), p . 7 5-77. 5. Data from the 1965, 1968 and 1974 e l e c t i o n s come from a merged f i l e prepared under the d i r e c t i o n of Dav id J . E i k i n s . For 1979, the data come from the 1979 Canadian N a t i o n a l E l e c t i o n Study conducted by H a r o l d C l a r k e , Jane Jensen , Lawrence Leduc and Jon Pammett. Both d a t a s e t s were o b t a i n e d from the Data L i b r a r y , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . N e i t h e r the Data L i b r a r y nor the o r i g i n a l c o l l e c t o r s of the data bear any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the a n a l y s e s or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e . 6. Karen 0. Mason, W i l l i a m M. Mason, H . H . Winsborough, and W. Kenneth P o o l e , "Some Methodo logoca l I ssues in Cohort A n a l y s i s of A r c h i v a l D a t a " , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 38 ( A p r i l , 1973), p .242-258 . 7. I b i d . , p . 2 4 3 . 8. I b i d . , p .248 . 9. W i l l a r d Rodgers , "Es t imable F u n c t i o n s of Age, P e r i o d , and Cohort E f f e c t s , " . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 47 (December: 1982), p . 774-787. Markus c r i t i c i z e s the Mason et a l . model as one which t rans forms "a f o r m a l l y i n d e t e r m i n a t e problem i n t o a n e a r l y i n d e t e r m i n a t e one ( i . e . , one in which e s t i m a t e s of the e f f e c t s are h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e to minor v a r i a t i o n s in the d a t a ) " . Gregory B. Markus , "Dynamic M o d e l l i n g of Cohort Change: The Case of P o l i t i c a l P a r t i s a n s h i p " , American J o u r n a l of  P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 27:4 (November, 1983), p . 720. 10. H e r b e r t L . Smi th , W i l l i a m M. Mason and Stephen E . F i e n b e r g , "More Chimeras of the A g e - P e r i o d - C o h o r t A c c o u n t i n g Framework: Comment on Rodgers ." American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 47 (December: 1982), p . 787-793. 49 11. Mason et a l . , op. c i t . , p . 249. I t i s important that the R 2 change be examined for i t s r e l a t i v e r a t h e r than a b s o l u t e e f f e c t . To the ex tent that c o l l i n e a r i t y i s p r e s e n t , the a b s o l u t e R 2 r e d u c t i o n underes t imate s the impact of the omi t t ed d i m e n s i o n . My thanks to R i c h a r d Johnston for t h i s p o i n t . 12. W i l l a r d Rodgers , "Reply to S m i t h , Mason and F i e n b e r g . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 47 (December: 1982), p . 794. 13. P h i l i p C o n v e r s e , "Of Time and P a r t i s a n S t a b i l i t y " , Comparat ive P o l i t i c a l S t u d i e s , 2 ( J u l y , 1969), p .139-171 . 14. Dav id B u t l e r and Donald S t o k e s , P o l i t i c a l Change i n  B r i t a i n , (London: M a c M i l l a n , 1969), p . 4 4 . 15. I b i d . , p . 5 9 . 16. I b i d . , p . 5 6 ; Converse (1976), op . c i t . , p . 1 2 - 1 3 . 17. Angus C a m p b e l l , P h i l i p C o n v e r s e , Warren M i l l e r , and Donald S tokes , The American V o t e r , (New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1960), p . 1 6 3 . 18. I b i d . , p . 1 6 5 . 1 9 . B u t l e r and Stokes , op. c i t . , p . 5 9 . 20. Converse (1976), op. c i t . , p . 4 4 . Ev idence in support of t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s r e p o r t e d in M. Kent J e n n i n g s and Gregory B. Markus , " P a r t i s a n O r i e n t a t i o n s over the L o n g - H a u l : R e s u l t s from the Three-Wave P o l i t i c a l S o c i a l i z a t i o n Panel S t u d y , " American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e Review, 78 (December, 1984), p . 1000-1018. 21. Converse (1976), op. c i t . , p . 4 7 . 22. A number of American i n v e s t i g a t o r s have produced r e s u l t s which l end support to t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Both Abramson, and Glenn and Hefner f i n d tha t v a r i a t i o n i n p a r t y s t r e n g t h i s due to d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s c o h o r t s r a t h e r than to v a r i a t i o n by age . See P a u l Abramson, G e n e r a t i o n a l Change in American P o l i t i c s , ( L e x i n g t o n , Mass: D . C . Heath , 1975), p . 5 5 - 6 9 ; N o r v a l Glenn and Ted H e f n e r , "Further Ev idence on Aging and P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n " , P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 36 ( S p r i n g , 1972), p . 3 1 - 4 7 . S i m i l a r l y , V e r b a , N i e , and P e t r o c i k demonstrate that new c o h o r t s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s e n t e r i n g the American e l e c t o r a t e in the 1960's d i d so 50 with weaker p a r t y at tachments than members of e a r l i e r c o h o r t s . Norman N i e , S idney V e r b a , and John P e t r o c i k , The Changing American V o t e r , (Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979), p . 6 5 . 23. For a t h e o r e t i c a l argument of g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h see , Pau l A l l e n Beck, "A Soc i a H z a t ion Theory of P a r t i s a n Rea l ignment" , in R i c h a r d G . Niemi and H e r b e r t F . W e i s b e r g , eds, C o n t r o v e r s i e s in American V o t i n g B e h a v i o r , (San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeman, 1976), p . 398-411. 24. R i c h a r d A . Brody , " S t a b i l i t y and Change in Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : P r e s i d e n t i a l to O f f - Y e a r s " , Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington , 1977, p . 5 4 . 25. H a r o l d D. C l a r k e , Jane J e n s o n , Lawrence Leduc and Jon Pammett, P o l i t i c a l Choice i n Canada, a b r i d g e d e d i t i o n , (Toronto : McGraw H i l l , 1980) , p . 1 05, and p.. 99-105 p a s s i m . For a review of arguments and ev idence that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s respond to s h o r t - t e r m i n f l u e n c e s see R i c h a r d G. Niemi and Herber t F . Weisberg , C o n t r o v e r s i e s in V o t i n g B e h a v i o r , (Washington: C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , 1984), p . 394-3 96. 26. See for example D. Knoke and M. Hout , " S o c i a l and Demographic F a c t o r s in American P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n s , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 39, p . 7 0 0 - 7 1 3 ; J . C r i t t e n d e n , . "Aging and P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n , " P u b l i c  O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 36, (1962), p . 648-657; Seymour M a r t i n L i p s e t , P o l i t i c a l Man, (Garden C i t y : Anchor Books, 1963), p . 283-286; and N o r v a l D. G l e n n , "Sources of the S h i f t to P o l i t i c a l Independence: Some Ev idence From a Cohort A n a l y s i s , " S o c i a l S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , (December, 1972), p . 494-529. But o t h e r s f i n d l i t t l e ev idence that ag ing a f f e c t s the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y a t tachments . See Robert B . Hudson and John S t r a t e , "Aging and the P o l i t i c a l System," in Robert H . B i n s t o c k and E t h e l Shanas, e d s . , Handbook of Aging and the  S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , (New Y o r k : Van N o s t r a n d R h e i n h o l d , 1985), p . 558. 27. The q u e s t i o n s used to measure p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the 1965 and 1968 c r o s s - s e c t i o n s , w h i l e g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r to those used in 1974 and 1979, d i f f e r in that i n t e g r a t e d sequences of q u e s t i o n s were used to measure the s t r e n g t h and d i r e c t i o n of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . See the ICPSR codebooks , study numbers 7225 and 7009 r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r the exact b a t t e r y of q u e s t i o n s used in these s u r v e y s . 51 28. M o r r i s P . F i o r i n a , R e t r o s p e c t i v e V o t i n g in American  N a t i o n a l E l e c t i o n s , (New Haven; Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1983), p . 92, a l s o p . 213-214. 29. O b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h m i s s i n g data are exc luded from the a n a l y s i s . 30. P . P i n e o , J . P o r t e r and H . McRoberts "1971 Census and the Socioeconomic C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of O c c u p a t i o n s , " Canadian Review of S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y , 14, (Feb . 1977), 91-102. 52 CHAPTER III AN AGE-PERIOD-COHORT ANALYSIS OF THE STRENGTH OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION The theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s t i p u l a t e s that p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i n c r e a s e s w i th age whi le other e x p l a n a t i o n s of the phenomenon suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p with cohor t and wi th p e r i o d . If the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s the p a r t y l o y a l t i e s of C a n a d i a n s , then in an a n a l y s i s which a l l o w s for the p o s s i b i l i t y of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h and age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t , we shou ld f i n d that the a g e - s t r e n g t h r e l a t i o n s h i p h o l d s . F u r t h e r , the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i t s c o m p e t i t o r s o f f e r g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . That i s , each a l t e r n a t i v e presumes to be e q u a l l y powerfu l in e x p l a i n i n g the t e n d e n c i e s of a l l i d e n t i f i e r s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y p r e f e r e n c e . T h i s chapter examines t h i s assumption and c o n s i d e r s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the v a r i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n s may be more or l e s s p e r s u a s i v e w i th r e s p e c t to i d e n t i f i e r s w i th the L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , and CCF-NDP p a r t i e s . To do t h i s , the a n a l y s i s i s r e p l i c a t e d by p a r t y to determine whether the g e n e r a l r e s u l t h o l d s w i t h i n p a r t y . 53 A n a l y s i s Before u n d e r t a k i n g the f u l l m u l t i v a r i a t e APC a n a l y s i s , we examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and age, p e r i o d and c o h o r t s e p a r a t e l y . The data in T a b l e I are the average l e v e l s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h for each of the four surveys used i n the a n a l y s i s . 1 Some y e a r l y f l u c t u a t i o n in the aggregate l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h rs e v i d e n t and the v a r i a t i o n i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The d i f f e r e n c e s in the sample means are in f a c t q u i t e s m a l l rang ing from a low of 2.11 in 1965 to a h i g h of 2.17 in 1974. Moreover , there i s no i n d i c a t i o n of sy s t emat i c movement. The average l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i n c r e a s e d somewhat from. 1965 to 1974 but d e c l i n e d in 1979. The y e a r l y f l u c t u a t i o n s in p a r t y s t r e n g t h , though smal l in magnitude and forming no g e n e r a l p a t t e r n , are s i g n i f i c a n t and suggest that p e r i o d e f f e c t s might be present in the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s . I n i t i a l support for the ag ing h y p o t h e s i s i s found i n F i g u r e 111 — 1 , a graph of the average l e v e l of p a r t y s t r e n g t h a c r o s s the s e r i e s of t h r e e - y e a r age groups . T a b l e I Average P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h by Year of Survey S t r e n q t h N Year 1 965 2.11 1665 1 968 2.12 2265 1 974 2.17 1 94 1 1 979 2.14 2130 T o t a l 2.14 8001 F= 2 .57 , p< .05 Figure 111-1: Strength of Federal Ident i f icat ion by Age* 5 t r e n 9 t h 2.5 • 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 Age (In 3 year groups) 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 8 *Source: Data Is from the National Elect ion Studies Combined (N-7962). Strength of Identif ication ranges from a low score of 1 to a high of 3. The values In the graph are the Intensity for each age group. <_n 56 A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s p r e s e n t as expected from the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a l t h o u g h the form of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s more l i n e a r than c u r v i l i n e a r . Rather than be ing c o n c e n t r a t e d among the young, i n c r e a s e s in the average l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h appear to occur f a i r l y s t e a d i l y over the l i f e c y c l e . Thus , the form of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f e r s support for the weak r a t h e r than the s t r o n g v e r s i o n of the t h e o r y . N o n e t h e l e s s , the g e n e r a l argument that p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y i n c r e a s e s wi th age r e c e i v e s support h e r e . But support for the argument of d i f f e r e n c e s in the f o r m a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s of s u c c e s s i v e g e n e r a t i o n s i s a l s o p r e s e n t . An i n s p e c t i o n of F i g u r e 111 - 2 r e v e a l s that o l d e r c o h o r t s are on average s t r o n g e r p a r t i s a n s than younger c o h o r t s . D i f f e r e n c e s in the p o l i t i c a l c l i m a t e in which s u c c e s s i v e c o h o r t s of v o t e r s f i r s t en tered the p o l i t i c a l wor ld might have produced the p a t t e r n in F i g u r e 111-2. In f a c t , there i s some ev idence that the i n t e n s i t y of the p a r t i s a n b a t t l e at the l o c a l l e v e l has d e c l i n e d over t ime . Reasons i n c l u d e a d i m i n i s h e d t o l e r a n c e for p a r t y p o l i t i c s , a g r e a t e r focus on n a t i o n a l i s sues and a r e d u c t i o n in the a b i l i t y of l o c a l p a r t y o f f i c i a l s to d i spense p a t r o n a g e . 2 A d m i t t e d l y , there i s no sure way of knowing the impact of the p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s of p r e v i o u s eras on emerging c o h o r t s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the argument i s s p e c u l a t i v e . But i t i s a l s o p l a u s i b l e . Moreover , t h e . data in F i g u r e 111-2 i Figure 111-2: Strength of Federal Ident i f icat ion by Cohort* 2.5 j 2.4 •-s t 2.3 -r e 2.2 -n g t 2.1 -h 2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -9 Cohort (in 3 year groups) H H 1- H 1 (- H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 1956 1950 1944 1938 1932 1926 1920 1914 1908 1902 1896 1890 1884 *Source: Data Is from the 1965, 1968, 1974, and 1979 National Elect ion Studies Combined (N=7962). Strength of Identi f icat ion ranges from a low score of 1 to a high of 3. The values In the graph are the average level of intensity for each cohort group. 58 c l e a r l y e x h i b i t c o h o r t d i f f e r e n c e s and l end e m p i r i c a l support to the argument. Taken t o g e t h e r , F i g u r e s 111 — 1 and 111 -2 i l l u s t r a t e the problem of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which c o n f r o n t s us . When p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s examined by age, i t o f f e r s support for the a g i n g h y p o t h e s i s . A n d . y e t , the same data a r r a y e d by c o h o r t , l e n d support to a g e n e r a t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n . To f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t e m a t t e r s , s m a l l but s i g n i f i c a n t y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s a l s o p r e s e n t . In s h o r t , each e x p l a n a t i o n of the s t r e n g t h of p a r t i s a n s h i p i s supported by t h i s e lementary a n a l y s i s . Each argument, however, i m p l i e s very d i f f e r e n t p r o p e r t i e s about p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . The task i s to determine the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of age, p e r i o d and cohort as a means of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between these d i f f e r e n t accounts of p a r t y s t r e n g t h . S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h The data in T a b l e II are the r e s u l t s of the APC a n a l y s i s of the i n t e n s i t y component of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Before d e s c r i b i n g the r e s u l t s , s e v e r a l g u i d e l i n e s are o f f e r e d to f a c i l i t a t e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t a b l e . The four b l o c k s of v a r i a b l e s in the t a b l e c o n t a i n the e s t imates for p e r i o d , c o h o r t , age , and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . I t i s e a s i e s t to i n t e r p r e t the t a b l e i f the r e s u l t s are examined b lock by b l o c k . Note that w i th re spec t to the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , i t i s not necessary to examine the 59 e s t i m a t e s a c r o s s a l l e i g h t e s t i m a t i o n s s i n c e the r e s u l t s are very s i m i l a r (a l though not i d e n t i c a l ) . The c o e f f i c i e n t s for the demographic v a r i a b l e s do vary a c r o s s the e s t i m a t i o n s . For the p e r i o d d i m e n s i o n , a v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n i s r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d s i n c e there are on ly three e s t i m a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s to compare. I n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s w i t h i n the age and c o h o r t d imens ions i s more d i f f i c u l t g iven the l a r g e number of c o e f f i c i e n t s . To f a c i l i t a t e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of age and c o h o r t p a t t e r n s , the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s from each e s t i m a t i o n are p l o t t e d and d i s p l a y e d g r a p h i c a l l y f o l l o w i n g each t a b l e of r e s u l t s . In a l l a n a l y s e s , the e i g h t p r e d i c t e d p a t t e r n s are never i d e n t i c a l ( i n f a c t , some p a t t e r n s d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y from the r e s t ) , but many are s i m i l a r . I t i s these ' s i m i l a r ' p a t t e r n s that serve as the b a s i s of the d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e s u l t s f or age and c o h o r t . (These are shown- in b o l d p r i n t i n the f i g u r e s ) . T u r n i n g to the a n a l y s i s , beg in wi th an i n s p e c t i o n of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . 3 A number of the v a r i a b l e s have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y attachments of a l l i d e n t i f i e r s . On average , women are somewhat s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i e r s than men. Some d i f f e r e n c e s are a l s o ev ident on the s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s . For example, both s e m i - s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d workers c l a i m s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s than those not in the w o r k f o r c e . E d u c a t i o n a l s o has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t . On average , s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n d e c l i n e s 60 w i t h an i n c r e a s e in the number of y e a r s of formal e d u c a t i o n . S u b j e c t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th a s o c i a l c l a s s has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on ly for those who see -themselves as upper c l a s s . These people are s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i e r s than those who see themselves as working c l a s s . The s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v a r i e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y by r e g i o n . R e l a t i v e to those who r e s i d e in O n t a r i o , both Westerners and Quebecers h o l d weaker t i e s to the p a r t i e s . ' R e s i d e n t s of the A t l a n t i c p r o v i n c e s h o l d somewhat s t r o n g e r p a r t y t i e s than r e s i d e n t s of O n t a r i o . With re spec t to the r e l i g i o n , i t i s no tab le that C a t h o l i c s tend to h o l d s t r o n g e r p a r t y l o y a l t i e s than P r o t e s t a n t s . T h i s i s the on ly d i s t i n c t i o n on t h i s d i m e n s i o n . In sum, the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s have a modest e f f e c t on the s t r e n g t h of p a r t i s a n s h i p . Taken t o g e t h e r , they account for about 1.5% of the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of a l l i d e n t i f i e r s . There are o n l y a few d i f f e r e n c e s between s o c i a l groups in t h e i r average s t r e n g t h of at tachment to a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . T u r n i n g to the demographic v a r i a b l e s , an i n s p e c t i o n of the r e s u l t s over the e i g h t models r e v e a l s i n c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s . F i g u r e s 111 -3 and 111-4 c o n t a i n a graph of the e s t i m a t e s for age and cohor t r e s p e c t i v e l y . In p a r t i c u l a r , models 7 and 8 d i f f e r n o t i c e a b l y from the o ther s i x e s t i m a t i o n s . There are a number of reasons to suspect that 61 Table II S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h (1 ) (2) (3) (4) b t b t b t b t P e r i o d 1 979 - - - - - - - -1 974 .00 . 10 .03 .94 .02 .47 .03 1.17 1968 - . 0 4 - .67 .02 .35 - .01 - .21 .01 .25 1 965 - . 0 5 - .67 . 03 .36 - . 02 - .21 .01 .25 Cohort 1956-58 - - .41 1 . 1 6 - - .32 2.88 1953-55 - - .28 .84 - - .20 2.06 1950-52 - - .29 .89 - .04 - .95 . 1 9 2.04 1947-49 - - .28 .92 - . 04 - . 57 . 1 9 2.29 1944-46 - . 0 3 - .63 .24 .84 - . 0 7 - 1 .01 . 1 6 2.07 1941-43 .03 .54 .29 1 .04 - .01 - . 1 5 .21 2.98 1938-40 - .03 - .51 .21 .78 - . 0 9 - .88 . 1 3 2. 03 1935-37 - . 0 3 - . 37 .20 .80 - . 0 9 - .77 . 12 2. 13 1932-34 - . 04 - .43 . 17 .75 - . 1 0 - .80 .10 1 .99 1929-3 1 - . 0 8 - . 78 . 1 1 .53 - . 1 5 - 1 .05 . 05 1.01 1926-29 - . 1 2 - . 98 .06 . 32 - . 19 - 1 .20 .00 .36 1923-25 - . 0 2 - . 1 5 . 1 5 .79 - . 1 0 - .56 .09 1 . 99 1920-22 - . 0 4 - .27 . 1 1 .66 - . 13 - .65 .06 1 . 32 1917-19 - . 1 5 - .91 - .01 - .06 - . 24 - 1 . 1 4 - . 0 6 - 1.19 1914-16 - . 0 4 - .21 .09 .60 - . 1 3 - .59 .04 . 77 1911-13 - . 0 7 - .35 .04 .3.3 - . 1 7 - .70 . 00 .03 1908-10 - .02 - . 1 1 .07 .64 - . 1 3 - . 50 .04 . 58 1 905-07 - . 1 8 - .81 - . 10 - .92 - . 2 9 - 1 .05 - . 1 3 - 1 .87 1902-04 - . 0 5 - . 22 .01 . 1 5 - . 1 7 . - .58 - .01 - . 1 6 1899-1901 - . 0 4 - . 1 7 .01 . 1 1 - . 1 7 - .54 - .01- - . 18 1896-98 .02 .06 .05 .65 - . 12 - .35 .03 . 38 1893-95 - . 0 4 - . 1 4 - - - . 1 7 - .51 - . 0 3 - . 36 1 890-92 .04 . 1 2 - - - .11 - .29 . 03 . 35 1887-89 - .03 - .09 - - - . 1 7 - .46 - -- 1886 . 06 .18 - - - . 1 0 - .24 - -Aqe 1 8-20 - - - - - - - -21-23 - . 0 4 - .61 - . 04 - .55 - - - -24-26 - . 0 6 - .90 - .01 - . 1 9 - . 02 - .37 .01 .31 27-29 - . 0 7 -1 .04 - . 02 - .22 - . 02 - .30 .01 . 15 30-32 - . 0 0 - .01 .06 .63 .06 .85 .09 1.61 33-35 .03 .29 .10 .92 .09 1 .09 . 1 2 2. 08 36-38 .07 .72 .16 1 .31 . 1 4 1 .43 .18 2.68 39-41 . 1 0 .92 .21 1 .50 .17 1 .55 .22 2. 95 62 42-44 .03 .26 . 1 5 1.01 . 1 1 .87 .16 2.03 45-47 .08 .65 .22 1 .34 . 17 1.19 .23 2.64 48-50 . 1 6 1.16 .32 1 .77 .26 1 .62 .32 3.48 51-53 . 1 7 1.12 .34 1 .75 .27 1 .54 .34 3.41 54-56 .21 1 .26 .39 1 .88 .31 1 .64 .38 3.75 57-59 . 1 7 .96 .37 1 .65 .28 1 .36 .36 3.29 60-62 .28 1 .43 .49 2.03 .39 1 .74 .47 4.15 63-65 . . 16 .78 .39 1 .52 .28 1.17 .37 3.09 66-68 .26 1.15 .50 1 .83 .38 1 .48 .47 3.79 69-71 .26 1.12 .52 1 .79 .40 1 . 44 .49 3.84 72-74 .28 1.13 .55 1 .82 .42 1 .44 .52 3.90 75-77 .28 1 . 07 .57 1 .80 .42 1 .37 .52 3.95 78-80 .29 1 . 05 .59 1 .80 .44 1 .35 .55 4.19 81 + .36 1.19 .70 2.06 .52 .1.46 .64 5.49 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .04 2.82 .04 2.84 .04 2.83 .04 2.83 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i onal .00 . 04 .00 .01 .00 . 05 . .00 .02 Propr i e t o r s . 05 1 .70 .05 1 .67 .05 1 .69 .05 1 .67 C l e r i c a l .02 .60 .02 .59 .02 .60 .02 .60 S k i l l e d .06 1 .83 .06 1 .82 .06 1 .83 .06 1 .83 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 1 2 3.33 . 1 2 3.34 . 1 2 3.33 . 1 2 3.33 Unsk i l i e d . 09 2.52 .08 2.51 .09 2. 52 .08 2.52 Farmers - . 02 - .51 - .02 - . 53 - .02 - . 52 - .02 - . 5 2 C l a s s Upper .08 2.42 .08 2.43 .08 2 .44 .08 2.45 M i d d l e .02 1.16 .02 1.17 .02 1.16 .02 1.19 No C l a s s - . 0 0 - .04 - . 0 0 - . 0 6 - . 0 0 - . 04 - .00 - . 0 5 Educat ion - .01 -3 .25 - .01 - 3.22 - .01 -3 .26 -.01 -3 .25 R e i i g i o n C a t h o l i c .09 4.89 .09 . 4.89 .09 4.89 .09 4.88 Other - . 0 2 - . 52 - . 0 2 - .52 - .02 - . 52 - .02 - . 5 3 No r e l i g i o n .00 . 1 0 .00 , 1 0 . . .00 . 09 .00 .09 Reg i on A t l a n t i c .06 2.02 .06 2.02 .06 2. 03 .06 2.02 Quebec - . 12 - 5 . 1 0 - .11 - 5.05 - .12 -5 .08 - .12 -5 .07 West - . 0 7 - 3 . 5 9 - . 0 7 - 3.61 - . 0 7 - 3 . 5 9 - . 07 - 3 . 62 Constant 2.13 27.87 1 .77 4.70 2.10 36.43 1 .84 16.31 R 2 .04321 .04361 .04324 .04360 R 2 Change* Coef f F Coef f F Coef f F Coef f F (X) .015 6.84 .015 6.85 .015 6.84 .015 6.86 ( P e r i o d ) .000 .45 .000 .47 .000 .43 .000 .59 (Age) . 002 .93 .003 1 .08 .002 .95 .007 2.62 (Cohort ) .003 1 .27 .004 1 .42 .003 1.19 .004 1 .37 63 T a b l e II ( cont inued) (5) (6) (7) (8) b t b t b t b t Per i o d 1979 - - - - - - - -1 974 .03 .98 .01 .36 - . 0 3 -1 .08 - . 0 2 - .81 1 968 .01 . 19 - . 02 - .40 - .11 -4 .05 - . 1 0 - 3 . 8 7 1 965 .01 • 19 - . 0 3 - .43 - . 14 -4 .58 - . 1 3 - 4 . 3 9 Cohort -1956-58 - - - - - - - . 3 9 -4 .76 1953-55 - .11 -1 .80 - . 12 -1 .75 - - - . 4 9 -5 .70 1950-52 - .11 - 1 . 7 9 - . 1 0 -1 .31 - .01 - . 1 0 - . 4 5 -5 .36 1947-49 - .11 -1 .78 - . 0 9 -1 .15 .03 .51 - . 42 - 5 . 1 9 1944-46 - . 1 5 -2 .24 - . 12 -1 .38 .02 .38 - . 4 3 -5 .69 1941-43 - . 1 0 -1 .35 - . 0 6 .65 . 1 0 1 .80 - . 3 5 -4 . 60 1938-40 - . 1 8 -2 .22 - .14 -1 .22 .05 .84 - . 4 0 -5 .15 1935-37 - . 1 9 -1 .97 - . 1 3 -1 .06 .08 1.18 - . 3 8 -4 .77 1932-34 - .21 -1 .92 - . 1 4 -1 .05 .09 1 .30 - . 3 7 -4 .67 1929-31 - . 2 7 -2 .18 - . 1 9 -1 .26 .07 .93 - . 4 0 -4 .93 1926-29 - .31 -2 .33 - . 2 3 -1 .38 .05 .71 - .41 - 5 . 1 1 1923-25 - . 22 -1 .52 - . 13 - .74 . 1 7 2.16 - . 30 -3 .58 1920-22 - . 2 6 -1 .60 - . 1 6 - .80 . 17 2.12 - . 30 -3 . 59 1917-19 - . 3 7 -2 .16 - . 2 7 -1 .27 .09 1 . 02 - . 3 9 -4 . 59 1914-16 - . 2 8 - 1 . 4 7 - . 1 6 - .71 .22 2.47 - . 26 -2 .99 1911-13 - .32 -1 .58 - . 1 9 - .80 .21 2.30 - . 2 7 -3 .09 1908- 1 0 - . 28 -1 .32 - . 1 5 - .59 .28 2.94 - . 2 0 -2 .33 1905-07 - . 4 5 -1 .96 - .31 -1- . 1 4 . 1 4 1 .46 - . 34 -3 .76 1902-04 - .34 -1 .38 - . 1 8 - .65 .29 2.88 - . 1 9 -2 .10 1899-1901 - .34 -1.31 - . 1 8 - .59 .32 3.31 - . 1 6 -1 . 90 1896-98 - . 2 9 -1 .07 - . 1 2 - .37 . 4 1 3.86 - . 0 8 - . 90 1893-95 - . 3 6 -1 .25 - . 1 7 - . 52 . 37 3. 50 - . 1 2 - 1 . 28 1890-92 - . 2 9 - . 9 6 - . 0 9 - .27 .47 4.08 - . 0 2 - . 20 1887-89 - . 3 7 -1 . 15 -.1.4 - .42 .43 3.81 - -- 1886 - . 3 0 - . 8 7 - . 02 .05 . 57 5.27 — — Age 1 8-20 _ _ - . 3 5 -1 .17 . 1 1 1 .29 .07 .94 21-23 - - - . 4 0 -1 .43 .06 1.17 - . 0 2 -1.74 24-26 - - - . 3 9 -1 .46 .03 .55 - .01 - . 2 9 27-29 - - - . 4 0 -1 .62 - . 02 -1 .33 - . 0 5 - 1 . 1 0 30-32 .08 1 .79 - . 3 3 -1 .40 .05 1 .03 .00 .04 33-35 . 1 2 2.11 - . 3 0 -1 .37 .05 1 .09 .01 . 1 4 36-38 .17 2.57 - . 2 5 -1 .24 .07 1 . 54 .03 . 66 39-41 .21 2.70 - . 22 -1 .16 .08 1 .69 .05 .84 42-44 .16 1 .70 - . 2 9 -1 .62 - .01 - . 14 - . 04 - . 7 6 45-47 .22 2.11 - . 2 3 -1 .42 .03 .49 - .01 - . 12 48-50 .31 2.65 - . 1 5 - .99 .09 1 .55 .06 .94 51-53 .34 2.52 - . 14 -1 .01 .07 1 .25 .04 .72 64 54-56 . 38 2. 62 - . 10 - . 7 8 .09 1 .48 .06 1 .00 57-59 .36 2.23 - . 1 3 -1 .18 .03 . 50 .01 . 1 3 60-62 .47 2.71 - . 0 3 - . 2 7 . 1 1 1 .73 .09 1 .34 63-65 .37 1 .96 - . 14 -1 .60 - . 02 - . 3 3 - .04 - .61 66-68 .48 2.33 - . 04 - . 52 .05 .69 .03 .44 69-71 . 50 2.27 - . 0 3 - . 4 5 .04 .49 .02 .28 72-74 .53 2.26 - - .03 .43 .02 .25 75-77 .53 2.16 - - .01 . 1 1 - . 01 - . 1 6 78-80 . 56 2.11 - - - - - -81 + .65 2.23 - - • - - - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .04 2.84 .05 2.86 .04 2.82 .04 2 .80 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .00 .04 .00 .08 .00 .04 .00 .00 P r o p r i e t o r s .05 1 .68 . 06 1 .74 , .05 1 . 69 .05 1 .66 C l e r i c a l .02 .60 .02 . 66 .02 .59 .02 .55 S k i l l e d .06 1.83 .06 1 .90 .06 1 .83 .06 1 .80 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 12 3.35 . 12 3.39 . 1 2 3.30 . 12 3 .29 U n s k i l l e d . 09 2. 52 .09 2.57 .08 2.51 .08 2 .48 Farmers - . 02 - .51 - . 02 - . 4 6 - . 0 2 - .51 - .02 - .52 C l a s s Upper . 08 2.45 .08 2.44 .08 2.44 .08 2 .45 M i d d l e .02 1.18 .02 1.16 .02 1.15 .02 1 .18 No C l a s s - . 0 0 - . 04 ' - . 0 0 - .01 - . 0 0 - . 02 - . 0 0 .- .05 Educat ion - .01 -3 .26 - . 01 -3 .25 - .01 - 3 . 2 9 - .01 -3 .29 R e l i g i o n . C a t h o l i c . 1 0 4 90 . 09 4.88 .09 4.87 .09 4 .84 Other - . 02 - . 5 3 - . 02 - .51 - . 0 2 - .51 • - .02 - .52 No r e l i g i o n .00 .08 .00 . 1 0 .00 .10 .00 . 1 2 Reg i on A t l a n t i c . 06 2.03 .06 2.04 .06 2.02 .06 2 .00 Quebec - . 12 -5 .08 - .11 - 5 . 06 - . 12 - 5 . 0 9 - .12 -5 .07 West - . 07 -3.61 - . 0 7 - 3 . 62 - . 0 7 -3.61 - . 0 7 -3 .65 Constant 2.15 33.79 2. 54 9. 07 2.05 28.61 2.55 36 . 1 5 R 2 . 04363 .04354 .04297 . 043 1 3 R 2 Change* C o e f f . F Coef f F Coef f F Coef f F (X) .015 6.88 .015 6.88 .015 6.84 .015 6 .84 ( P e r i o d ) .000 .56 .000 .53 .004 9.41 .003 9 . 04 (Age) .002 1.10 .002 1 .06 .002 .89 .002 .90 (Cohort ) .004 1 .35 .004 1 .41 .010 3. 52 .009 3 . 1 5 N=7744 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. Figure IM-3: Age Est imates of the Strength of Identif ication, Models 1 - 8 67 the l a t t e r two models do not r e f l e c t the data very w e l l . F i r s t , g iven the c r i t e r i a of c o n s i s t e n c y a c r o s s models , the fac t that they do d i f f e r makes them s u s p e c t . Second, both e s t i m a t i o n s i n d i c a t e the presence of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n in a p a t t e r n tha t does not r e f l e c t the raw s c o r e s . The magnitude of the d i f f e r e n c e between 1979 and 1965 and 1968 i s much l a r g e r than the d i f f e r e n c e i n the raw scores ( i n Tab le I) and the s i gn for the 1974 p r e d i c t e d va lue i s in the wrong d i r e c t i o n . F i n a l l y , the c o e f f i c i e n t s of d e t e r m i n a t i o n for these e s t i m a t i o n s are s l i g h t l y sma l l er than for the remain ing models , i n d i c a t i n g a somewhat poorer f i t . For these reasons models 7 and 8 are r e j e c t e d . The remaining s i x e s t i m a t i o n s produce s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . I t can be seen from an examinat ion of the change in the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n (at the bottom of Tab le I I , that in most cases none of the three demographic v a r i a b l e s make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the t o t a l e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . In the a n a l y s i s of the data p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e I , the y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n in the average l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h was s i g n i f i c a n t , but only b a r e l y . In the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s , no s i g n i f i c a n t y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n remains , and the p e r i o d dimension as a whole i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . In s h o r t , none of the demographic f a c t o r s make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a n a t i o n of the p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of Canadian p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . In l i g h t of the 68 demonstrated importance of demographic f a c t o r s in a c c o u n t i n g for p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h e l s ewhere , and c o n s i d e r i n g the s t rong argument ' made by proponents of the theory of par ty i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the theory in o ther c o u n t r i e s , these r e s u l t s are both s u r p r i s i n g and d i s a p p o i n t i n g . D e s p i t e these f i n d i n g s , i t i s worthwhi le to pres s on and examine the p a t t e r n of the e s t i m a t e s a c r o s s the age and cohor t d i m e n s i o n s . Here we are l o o k i n g for p a t t e r n s which might i n d i c a t e at l e a s t some support for e i t h e r the age or c o h o r t e x p l a n a t i o n of p a r t y s t r e n g t h . A l l s i x models ( i . e . Models 1-6) show the same genera l r e s u l t s . When age and cohor t are e s t i m a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , the outcome i s a p a t t e r n which i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th the age e x p l a n a t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r , the r e s u l t s of a l l s ix models i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . At the same t ime , the p a t t e r n of the e s t i m a t e s a c r o s s the c o h o r t d imens ion show a s l i g h t negat ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t y s t r e n g t h and c o h o r t . Cohorts of younger v o t e r s , are somewhat s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i e r s than c o h o r t s of o l d e r v o t e r s , a l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l . In F i g u r e s 111 — 1 and I I I - 2 , we saw that both age and c o h o r t were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to p a r t y i n t e n s i t y . But when age and cohor t are e s t i m a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , on ly the a g e - s t r e n g t h p a t t e r n h o l d s . " T h i s r e s u l t i s c o n s i s t e n t with the e x p e c t a t i o n s based on the theory of p a r t y 69 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . To the extent that age indexes the d u r a t i o n of a t tachment , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n appears to i n c r e a s e in i n t e n s i t y over t i m e . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n must be q u a l i f i e d by the f a c t that the age ga ins in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h are not l a r g e . In sum, the a n a l y s i s l eaves us in an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s i t u a t i o n . At b e s t , there i s weak support for the a g i n g h y p o t h e s i s . At wors t , the a n a l y s i s suppor t s the s u s p i c i o n that n e i t h e r the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n nor any of i t s c o m p e t i t o r s p r o v i d e s a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n of p a r t i s a n s tength in Canada. To c o n f i r m these r e s u l t s , we r e - e s t i m a t e d model 3 wi th the p e r i o d d imens ion e x c l u d e d . The d e c i s i o n to exc lude t h i s d imension r a t h e r than e i t h e r age or cohort i s based on the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s in the p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s where a l l three demographic v a r i a b l e s were e s t i m a t e d . The r e s u l t s (shown in T a b l e I I I ) support the p r e v i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a l t h o u g h there are some d i f f e r e n c e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , both the age and cohor t d imensions make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . Of the two, age had the l a r g e r e f f e c t as i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i s g r e a t e r than tha t for c o h o r t ; i n f a c t , the c o h o r t dimension i s b a r e l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Moreover , the p a t t e r n s across the d imensions are e s s e n t i a l l y the same as before - the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t y s t r e n g t h i s p o s i t i v e whi le the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o h o r t and s t r e n g t h remains negat i v e . 70 T a b l e III S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on P a r t y S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) b t b t Cohort Aqe 1956-58 18-20 1953-55 21-23 1950-52 .05 - . 8 0 24-26 .01 - .35 1947-49 .04 - .81 27-29 .01 .23 1944-46 .09 -1 .78 30-32 .07 1 .39 1941-43 .03 - . 6 8 33-35 . 1 1 2 .08 1938-40 . 1 1 -2 .04 36-38 .16 2 .93 1935-37 . 1 1 -2 .14 39-41 .20 3 .44 1932-34 . 1 4 -2.31 42-44 . 1 4 2 .33 1929-31 . 1 9 - 3 . 0 6 45-47 .21 3 .30 1926-28 .24 -3 .61 48-50. .30 4 . 56 1923-25 . 1 5 - 2 . 1 6 51-53 .32 4 .60 1920-22 . 18 - 2 . 5 5 54-56 . 37 5 .02 1917-19 .30 -4 .02 57-59 .34 4 .40 1914-16 .20 - 2 . 5 7 60-62 .46 5 .67 1911-13 .24 -2 .92 63-65 .35 4 . 1 3 1908-10 .21 -2 .42 66-68 .46 5 .06 1905-07 .37 -4.11 69-7 1 .48 4 .91 1902-04 .26 - 2 . 6 7 72-74 .51 5 .00 1899-1901 .26 -2 .62 75-77 .52 4 .77 18.96-98 .21 -2 .02 78-80 .54 4 .59 1893-95 .28 - 2 . 4 7 81 + .63 4 .86 1890-92 .21 -1 .69 1887-89 .28 -2.11 -1886 .21 - 1 . 4 5 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .05 2.92 E d u c a t i o n .01 -3 .31 Occupat ion R e l i g i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 .34 C a t h o l i c .10 4 .90 P r o p r i e t o r s .07 2.13 Other .02 - .50 C l e r i c a l .03 .91 No R e l i g i o n .00 .12 S k i l l e d .06 2.15 Region S e m i - S k i l l e d . 1 3 3.80 A t l a n t i c .06 2 .04 U n s k i l l e d .09 2.92 Quebec . 1 2 -5 .07 Farmers .01 - . 2 8 West .07 -3 .59 7 1 T a b l e III ( cont inued) b t C l a s s . Upper .08 2, .44 M i d d l e .02 1 , .18 No C l a s s - . 00 .04 Constant 2.10 37, .75 R 2 .043 R2 Change* Coeff . F (X) .016 7 .04 (Cohort ) .004 1 , .55 (Age) .007 2 .93 N=7744 R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 72 AN APC ANALYSIS OF THE PARTISAN STRENGTH OF LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, AND NDP IDENTIFIERS A l t h o u g h the r e s u l t s of the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s are weak, they do come down on the s ide of a weak v e r s i o n of the argument f a v o u r i n g the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In t h i s s e c t i o n of the c h a p t e r , we want to determine i f t h i s s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n a p p l i e s w i th equa l f o r c e to the r e s p e c t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s of the three major f e d e r a l p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s . The arguments for age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t e f f e c t s are somewhat g e n e r i c in nature in that they are aimed at the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . An a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h by p a r t y i s necessary to determine i f t h i s homogeneity i s the c a s e . .The a n a l y s i s e x p l o r e s the p o s s i b i l i t y that d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s might e x i s t between the three p o p u l a t i o n s of p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . The importance of t h i s approach becomes more apparent when i t i s r e c o g n i z e d that the p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s d i d not t r e a t a l l i d e n t i f i e r s e q u a l l y . L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s outnumber C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s by almost 2 to 1 and outnumber NDP i d e n t i f i e r s by a r a t i o of 4 to 1. In s h o r t , the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s was dominated by L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s . T h i s may have a f f e c t e d the r e s u l t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s s work for i d e n t i f i e r s of the d i f f e r e n t 73 p a r t i e s . Whether or not t h i s i s the case can on ly be de termined by an a n a l y s i s of the s t r e n g t h of par ty i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of each p a r t y . Another reason for p e r f o r m i n g a separate a n a l y s i s for each p a r t y stems from the argument s u r r o u n d i n g p e r i o d e f f e c t s . In the p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s , we found no s i g n i f i c a n t e l e c t i o n year v a r i a t i o n in the mean l e v e l of p a r t y s t r e n g t h a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g for age and cohor t e f f e c t s . However, t h i s does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean that the l e v e l of attachment for each group of p a r t i s a n s i s s i m i l a r l y s t a b l e . I f decreases in the s t r e n g t h of attachment for i d e n t i f i e r s of one par ty are o f f s e t by i n c r e a s e s in s t r e n g t h among other p a r t i s a n s , then i t i s p o s s i b l e to have a s i t u a t i o n in which the average l e v e l of s t r e n g t h for a l l i d e n t i f i e r s i s s t a b l e over time wh i l e the l e v e l of attachment for i d e n t i f i e r s of each of the three p a r t i e s v a r i e s over t i m e . The a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y may f l u c t u a t e over time as a r e f l e c t i o n of i t s per formance . In f a c t , we know from o p i n i o n p o l l s that p a r t y support v a r i e s a good d e a l over the shor t term. I f the measure of p a r t y s t r e n g t h i s s e n s i t i v e to c u r r e n t p a r t y a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , then we might expect to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n in the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n for each p a r t y . 5 In the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s , we undertake an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of age, p e r i o d and cohort on the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y at tachments of L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e 74 and NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . Because the number of cases a v a i l a b l e for each a n a l y s i s i s l i m i t e d to the number of i d e n t i f i e r s w i t h each p a r t y , there are too few cases to c o n t i n u e u s i n g the t h r e e - y e a r age and c o h o r t g r o u p s . To remedy t h i s , t h e span of each age and c o h o r t group i s doubled from three to s i x y e a r s . For L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s , t h i s ensures tha t most age and c o h o r t c a t e g o r i e s have w e l l over 100 cases in them. But for the NDP, there s t i l l remain a good number of age and cohort groups with c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than 100 re spondents , a f a c t which may a f f e c t the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s . 6 S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on the S t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l  I dent i f i c a t i o n s T a b l e IV c o n t a i n the r e s u l t s of e i g h t e s t i m a t i o n s of the e f f e c t s of p e r i o d , c o h o r t , age, and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s on the s t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s a l l e s t i m a t i o n s except model 3. A c c o r d i n g l y , the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n i s based on the very s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s of the seven remain ing models . Begin with the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . A l though s m a l l i n magni tude , the e f f e c t s of a number of s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s on L i b e r a l p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h are s i g n i f i c a n t . Women are somewhat s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i e r s wi th the p a r t y than are men. The o n l y no tab le d i f f e r e n c e by o c c u p a t i o n i s that s e m i - s k i l l e d ' workers are s t r o n g e r L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s than are those in other o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s . On e d u c a t i o n , 75 the ev idence i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of years of formal e d u c a t i o n and the s t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . An i n c r e a s e in e d u c a t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d with a decrease i n the s t r e n g t h of attachment to the p a r t y . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s are present on the remain ing s t a t u s i n d i c a t o r , s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l c l a s s . Some r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s are p r e s e n t . A l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l , L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s who r e s i d e in the West or in Quebec are not as s t r o n g l y t i e d to the p a r t y as those who l i v e in O n t a r i o . The d i f f e r e n c e for Quebec i s compensated by the f a c t that C a t h o l i c s are s t r o n g e r L i b e r a l s than are P r o t e s t a n t s . The r e l a t i v e weakness of the p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l s from the West i s p r o b a b l y a r e f l e c t i o n of the weakness of the p a r t y in that area of the c o u n t r y over the course of the four e l e c t i o n s covered by the d a t a . Taken t o g e t h e r , the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s account for 3% or about h a l f of the t o t a l e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in L i b e r a l p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y . T u r n i n g to the demographic v a r i a b l e s , an examinat ion of the change in the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n d i c a t e s that v a r i a t i o n by age accounts for a s m a l l (about .4%) but s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e in L i b e r a l p a r t y s t r e n g t h . Moreover , age i s the only one of the three demographic terms to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t a c r o s s a l l models . F u r t h e r m o r e , the p a t t e r n of the 76 Table IV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t i s a n S t r e n g t h (1 ) (2) (3) (4) b t b t , b t t Per i o d 1 979 - - - - - - - -1 974 - . 0 3 - . 7 4 - .02 - .57 - . 04 -1 . 1 2 - . 0 3 - .86 1968 - . 0 8 - 2 . 0 6 - . 0 7 -1 .49 - . 1 2 -2 .88 - . 0 9 -2 .13 1 965 - . 1 0 - 2 . 0 9 - . 08 -1 .50 - . 1 5 -3 .00 - .11 -2 .18 Cohort 1953-58 - - .07 .41 - - - -1947-52 - - .09 . .54 .00 . 05 .02 .36 1941-46 - - .07 .50 .02 . 44 .02 .27 1935-40 - - . 06 .45 .04 .71 .01 . 1 7 1929-34 - . 0 3 - . 5 5 . 03 . 26 .06 1 .03 - . 0 0 - .05 1923-28 - . 0 6 - 1 . 0 3 - .02 - . 20 .05 .67 - .04 - .34 1917-22 - .05 - . 5 8 - . 0 0 - . 06 .08 .89 - . 02 - . 1 3 1911-16 - . 0 6 - . 6 3 - .02 - .41 .08 .77 - . 0 3 - .20 1905-10 - .03 - . 2 5 - - . 1 3 1 .04 .01 .08 1899-1904 - .01 - . 1 0 - - . 1 6 1 . 1 1 .04 .29 1893-98 - . 1 7 - . 4 5 . - - . 1 2 .74 . 02 . 1 2 -1 892 .10 . 59 - - .30 1 . 65 . 18 1 .08 Aqe 18-23 - - . - - - - - . 2 0 - 1 . 53' 24-29 - .07 -1 .49 - . 06 -1 . 25 - - - . 27 -2 . 36 30-35 - . 0 0 - . 0 2 .01 . 1 4 - - - .21 -2 .09 36-4 1 .07 1 .22 .08 1 .05 - - - 1 4 - 1 .69 42-47 .01 .08 .03 .30 - . 0 6 -1 . 1 3 - .21 -3 . 1 1 48-53 . 1 4 1.71 .17 1 .47 .06 .89 - . 0 8 -1 .49 54-59 .23 2.40 .27 2 .02 . 1 4 1 . 65 - -60-65 . 18 1 .64 .23 1 . 52 .07 .71 - -66-7 1 .28 2.15 .32 1 .95 . 1 5 1 .26 - -72 + .29 1 .78 .35 2 .08 . 1 2 .84 - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .05 2.17 .05 2 . 1 4 .05 2 . 1 0 .05 2 . 1 2 O c c u p a t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 . 1 6 .00 . 10 .00 .10 .01 .10 Propr i e t o r s .07 1 .62 .07 1 .55 .07 1 .52 .07 1 . 53 C l e r i c a l - . 0 0 - . 0 2 - . 00 - . 10 - . 0 0 - .05 - .01 - . 1 3 S k i l l e d .02 .48 .02 .43 .02 .39 .02 .41 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 1 0 2 . 1 4 . 1 0 2, . 1 0 . 10 2, .07 . 10 2, .05 U n s k i l l e d .07 1 .51 .07 1 , .43 .07 1 , .42 .07 1 , .43 Farmers .00 . 03 - . 0 0 .04 - . 0 0 .04 .00 . 00 C l a s s Upper .07 1 .73 .07 1 , .73 .07 1 . .76 .07 1 , .73-M i d d l e .03 1 .02 .02 1 , .01 .03 1 , .04 .03 1 , .02 No C l a s s - .01 - .28 - .01 .29 - .01 i .29 - . 0 2 .30 E d u c a t i o n - .01 -3 .21 - .01 -3 , . 1 4 - .01 -3 , . 26 - .01 -3 , .22 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c . 1 6 6 . 1 1 . 1 6 6, . 12 .16 6, .05 . 16 6, .07 Other .05 .87 .05 .89 .05 .82 .05 .82 No r e l i g i o n - . 0 5 - .85 - . 0 5 .86 - . 0 5 i .86 - . 05 .91 Region A t l a n t i c .05 1 .24 .05 1 , .32 .05 1 , .18 . 05 1 , . 19 Quebec - . 1 0 -3 .52 - . 1 0 -3 , .52 -.10" -3 , .54 - . 1 0 -3 , . 53 West - . 1 3 -4 .51 - . 1 3 -4 , .49 - .14 -4, . 54 - . 14 -4 , . 56 Constant 2.15 28 .60 2.07 10, . 79 2.14 28, . 1 4 2.35 16, .89 R 2 .06249 .061 82 . 061 04 . 061 95 R 2 Change* Coef f F Coef f F Coef f F Coef f F (X) . 030 7. 05 .030 7, .01 . 030 6, .98 .030 7, .01 (Per iod) . 001 1 . 92 .001 . 95 .003 3, .66 .001 1 , . 99 (Age ) . 004 2. 1 4 .005 2, . 25 .003 1 , . 97 . 004 2, .62 (Cohort ) .001 • 62 .000 . 26 . 001 .49 .002 . 76 78 T a b l e IV (cont inued) (5) (6) (7) (8) b t b t b t b t Per i od 1 979 - - - - - - - -1974 - . 02 - . 4 6 - .01 - . 2 9 - . 02 - . 62 - .02 - .60 1 968 - . 0 6 -1.31 - . 0 5 -1 .03 - . 0 7 -1 . 54 - . 07 -1 .50 1 965 - . 0 8 -1.31 - . 0 6 -1 .02 - . 0 9 -1 .56 - . 0 9 -1 .51 Cohort 1953-58 - - . 18 .83 - - .04 .18 1947-52 - - . 16 .78 - - . 05 .28 1941-46 - .02 - . 4 6 . 1 4 .75 - .01 - . 14 .04 .23 1935-40 - . 0 5 - . 7 9 . 1 1 .63 - .02 - .31 .03 .18 •1 929-34 - . 1 8 -.91 .08 .50 - . 0 5 - . 56 .00 .02 1923-28 - . 12 -1 .20 .02 . 17 - . 0 9 - . 8 7 - .04 - .32 1917-22 - .11 - . 9 2 . 03 .25 - . 0 7 - .61 - .02 - .22 1911-16 - . 1 3 - . 94 . 00 .03 - . 0 9 - . 65 - .04 - .46 1905-10 - .11 - . 6 7 .02 .23 - . 0 7 - . 41 - .01 - .19 1899-1904 - . 1 0 - . 5 5 .02 .22 - . 0 5 - .31 - .00 - .06 1893-98 - . 1 6 - . 7 9 - - - .11 - . 58 - --1892 . 00 .00 - - . 05 .25 - -Aqe 18-2 3 - - - - - . 32 -1 .82 - . 31 -1 .69 24-29 - - - - . - . 3 8 - 2 . 30 - . 37 -2 .23 30-35 .06 1 .24 .07 1 . 38 - . 3 0 -2 .08 - . 30 -2 .03 36-41 . 1 4 2 14 . 1 5 2.31 - . 2 3 -1 .78 - . 2 3 -1 .73 42-47 .09 • 1 .02 . 1 0 1 .22 - . 2 9 -2 .56 - . 2 9 -2 .50 48-53 . 22 2 .20 . 25 2.40 - . 1 5 -1 .60 - . 1 5 -1 . 56 54-59 .33 2.66 .36 2.87 - . 0 5 - . 6 7 - . 0 5 - .64 60-65 .29 2.00 . 32 2.23 - . 10 -1.51 - . 1 0 -1 .49 66-7 1 . 39 2.36 . 42 2.51 - • - - -72 + .39 2.04 .46 2.44 - - - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender . 05 2.18 . 05 2.16 .05 2.18 .05 2 . 1 3 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .00 . 1 0 .00 .05 .01 . 16 .00 .10 P r o p r i e t o r s .07 1 .58 .07 1 .51 .07 1 .63 .07 1 .54 C l e r i c a l - . 0 0 - . 0 3 - . 0 0 - . 11 - . 0 0 - . 02 - . 0 0 - . 1 0 S k i l l e d .02 .46 .02 .40 .02 .49 .02 .43 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 1 0 2.11 . 1 0 2.05 .10 2.14 .10 2 .10 U n s k i l l e d .07 1 .50 .07 1 .42 .07 1.51 .07 1 .43 Farmers .00 .01 - . 00 - . 0 8 .00 .03 - . 0 0 - .04 79 C l a s s \ Upper .07 1 .74 .07 M i d d l e .02 1 .00 .02 No C l a s s - .01 - .29 - .01 E d u c a t i o n - .01 -3 .17 - .01 R e i i g i o n C a t h o l i c . 16 6 .09 .16 Other .05. .88 .05 No r e l i g i o n - . 0 5 - .84 - . 0 5 Reg i on A t l a n t i c . 05 1 .23 .05 Quebec - . 1 0 -3 .54 - . 1 0 West - .14 -4 . 53 - . 1 3 Cons tant 2.11 29 .64 1 . 94 R 2 .06212 . 06 R 2 Change* Coef f F Coef f (X) .030 7. 01 . 030 (Per iod) . 001 # 74 . 000 (Age) .004 2. 06 . 004 (Cohort ) .001. 55 . 001 N=4070 1 .74 .07 1 .73 .07 1 .74 .99 .02 1.01 .03 1 .02 - . 3 0 - .01 - . 2 8 - .01 - . 27 -3.11 - .01 -3 .22 - .01 -3 .16 6.08 .16 6.12 .16 6.11 .89 .05 .88 .05 .88 - . 8 2 - . 0 5 - . 8 5 - . 0 5 - . 8 6 1.31 .05 1 .24 .05 1.30 -3 .50 - . 1 0 -3 .52 - . 1 0 -3 .52 -4 .50 - . 1 3 -4.51 - . 1 3 -4 .48 8.56 2.46 1 4.86 2.41 32.39 47 .06251 .06176 F Coef f F Coef f F 6.96 . 030 7.05 .030 7.00 .49 .001 1 .00 .001 .95 2.14 . 004 2.27 .004 2.30 . 28 .001 . . 54 .001 .22 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 80 c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h i n the d imens ion i s s i m i l a r a c r o s s a l l mode l s . (A graph of the e s t i m a t e s for age and c o h o r t i s shown in F i g u r e 111 — 5 and 111-6 r e s p e c t i v e l y . ) The r e s u l t s show that the i n t e n s i t y of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n c r e a s e s w i t h age. F u r t h e r , the d i f f e r e n c e in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h between the young and the o l d i s s i g n i f i c a n t in most models . T h i s i s most c l e a r l y ev ident in models 5 and 6. Respondents who are 48 y e a r s of age or over e x h i b i t h i g h e r l e v e l s of p a r t y s t r e n g t h than respondents in the younger age c a t e g o r i e s . C u r i o u s l y , much g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e s in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h occur over the l a t t e r hal-f of the l i f e c y c l e ( i . e . , a f t e r the age of 40) , than in e a r l i e r y e a r s of p o l i t i c a l l i f e . T h i s p a t t e r n i s a marked d e p a r t u r e from the one p r e d i c t e d by the l e a r n i n g curve model . That model suggests that the l a r g e s t ga ins in p a r t y s t r e n g t h shou ld occur e a r l y in the p o l i t i c a l l i f e c y c l e . Our r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e however, that a t tachments to the L i b e r a l p a r t y take some time to congea l and do not harden i n t o s t r o n g p a r t y bonds u n t i l middle age. Cohort v a r i a t i o n does not make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a n a t i o n of L i b e r a l p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . An examinat ion of the change in the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e v e a l s that t h i s d imension has no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the e s t i m a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , an i n s p e c t i o n of the c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s the c o h o r t d imension r e v e a l s a f a i r l y f l a t p a t t e r n . In g e n e r a l , no cohor t 81 82 d i f f e r e n c e s in the s t r e n g t h of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are present i n the a n a l y s i s . S i m i l a r l y , there i s l i t t l e ev idence of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s . The d imens ion i t s e l f makes no s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the t o t a l v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d in most models . Ev idence of s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the p e r i o d dimension i s present for models 3 and 4 but not in any of the o ther e s t i m a t i o n s . In g e n e r a l , there i s not much ev idence that the average l e v e l of L i b e r a l s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s f l u c t u a t e s over the s h o r t - t e r m . T a b l e V c o n t a i n s the r e s u l t s of an e s t i m a t i o n wi th the p e r i o d dimension o m i t t e d . The r e s u l t s t e l l the same s t o r y . The p a t t e r n over age remains p o s i t i v e and that over c o h o r t n e g a t i v e . F u r t h e r , the age d imens ion remains s i g n i f i c a n t whi le the cohort d imens ion does not make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e s t i m a t i o n . 7 T h i s a n a l y s i s has produced some q u a l i f i e d ev idence in support of the account of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h p r o v i d e d by the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . When the e f f e c t s of age, p e r i o d and cohort were s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e s t imated in a number of d i f f e r e n t models , v a r i a t i o n by age emerged as the dominant f a c t o r . The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and L i b e r a l p a r t y s t r e n g t h i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th the argument that p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i n c r e a s e s over t i m e . But a c c o r d i n g to the a n a l y s i s , the bulk of the i n c r e a s e s occur a f t e r the age of 40. The argument for the r a p i d ' b i n d i n g i n ' of p a r t y t i e s 83 Tab le V S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t y S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) b • t b t Cohort Age 1953-58 18-23 - — 1947-52 24-29 - - -1941-46 - . 0 6 -1 .36 30-35 .09 2. 04' 1935-40 - .11 -2 .18 36-41 .19 3. 67 1929-34 - . 1 6 -2 .70 42-47 . 17 2. 68 1923-28 - . 2 3 -3.41 48-53 . 33 4. 85 1917-22 - .24 -3 .27 54-59 .46 5. 71 1911-16 - . 3 0 - 3 . 4 9 60-65 .45 5. 00 1 905-10 - . 3 0 -3 .16 66-71 . 58 5. 63 1899-1904 - . 32 -2 .99 72 + .61 5. 31 1893-98 - .41 -3 .43 -1 892 - . 2 6 -1 .95 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .05 2.24 E d u c a t i o n - .01 - 3 . 1 7 Occupat i on R e l i g i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 . 1 5 C a t h o l i c . 1 6 6. 1 3 Propr i e tor s .07 1 .75 Other . 05 • 89 C l e r i c a l - .00 - .03 No R e l i g i o n - . 05 7 9 S k i l l e d .01 .36 Region S e m i - S k i l l e d . 1 0 2.27 A t l a n t i c .05 1 . 28 U n s k i l l e d .07 1 .57 Quebec - . 1 0 - 3 . 52 Farmers -.0.0 - . 0 0 West - . 14 - 4 . 55 C l a s s Upper .07 1 .74 M i d d l e .03 1 . 02 No C l a s s - .01 - .24 Constant 2.09 30.05 R 2 .062 R2 Change* C o e f f . F (X) .030 7.12 (Cohort ) .004 1 .69 (Age) .011 5.95 N=4070 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 84 e a r l y in l i f e i s not s u p p o r t e d . N e i t h e r are .the age ga in s l a r g e i n magnitude. At b e s t , the ev idence p r o v i d e s modest support for the t h e o r y . S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on S t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e  Ident i f i c a t ion The r e s u l t s of the e i g h t e s t i m a t i o n s p r e d i c t i n g the s t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e V I . The e s t imated c o e f f i c i e n t s of the s o c i a l f a c t o r s are i d e n t i c a l in a l l e i g h t models . We begin by b r i e f l y n o t i n g which of these f a c t o r s have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . With respec t to gender , the a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s tha t women are somewhat s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i e r s than men. .On the s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s , there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h by e d u c a t i o n . The on ly s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t i n c t i o n by o c c u p a t i o n i s that s e m i - s k i l l e d workers are s t r o n g e r i d e n t i f i e r s than those in o ther o c c u p a t i o n s . At the same t ime , C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s who see themselves as upper c l a s s c l a i m a s t r o n g e r p a r t y t i e than i d e n t i f i e r s who p l a c e themselves in some other c l a s s . R e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h are a l s o e v i d e n t . On average , C o n s e r v a t i v e s who r e s i d e in the A t l a n t i c p r o v i n c e s h o l d s t r o n g e r at tachments to the p a r t y than those who r e s i d e in O n t a r i o . However, C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s from Quebec are much weaker p a r t i s a n s than O n t a r i o C o n s e r v a t i v e s . There i s no 85 d i f f e r e n c e in the average p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of Western and O n t a r i o C o n s e r v a t i v e s . The r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s are as expected g iven the h i s t o r i c a l s t r e n g t h of the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y in the r e s p e c t i v e r e g i o n s of the c o u n t r y . D i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t y s t r e n g t h by r e l i g i o n are not very i m p o r t a n t . C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s who are n o n - C a t h o l i c and n o n - P r o t e s t a n t are weaker i d e n t i f i e r s than P r o t e s t a n t i d e n t i f i e r s , but these people are r e l a t i v e l y few i n number and t h e r e f o r e do not have a major impact on o v e r a l l l e v e l s of the s t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . What i s s u r p r i s i n g i s the l a c k of d i f f e r e n c e in p a r t y s t r e n g t h between C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s . While C a t h o l i c s as a whole are l e s s i n c l i n e d to i d e n t i f y wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y than P r o t e s t a n t s , those C a t h o l i c s who do i d e n t i f y w i th the p a r t y h o l d j u s t as s t r o n g p a r t y t i e s as P r o t e s t a n t s . As a whole, the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s account for about 3% of the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . T h i s r e p r e s e n t s j u s t over h a l f of the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d by the whole e s t i m a t i o n . T u r n i n g to the demographic v a r i a b l e s , in seven of the e i g h t models cohor t i s the on ly s i g n i f i c a n t demographic f a c t o r e x p l a i n i n g v a r i a t i o n i n C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h (see the R 2 change at the bottom of the t a b l e ) . Age and p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n add n o t h i n g to the e s t i m a t i o n except in the r e s u l t produced by model 2, which a t t r i b u t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t to age . In the remaining seven models , 86 the c o n t r i b u t i o n of each dimens ion to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e i s n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l , as i s the p a t t e r n of the c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s the c o h o r t and age d i m e n s i o n s . The c o h o r t d imens ion accounts for about 1% of the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in C o n s e r v a t i v e s t r e n g t h . That f i g u r e may seem smal l at f i r s t , but i t i s in f a c t r e l a t i v e l y s u b s t a n t i a l g iven that the whole e s t i m a t i o n accounts for l e s s than 6% of the v a r i a t i o n in p a r t y s t r e n g t h . Cohort v a r i a t i o n makes an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a n a t i o n of the s t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . I t s importance becomes more e v i d e n t from an examinat ion of the p a t t e r n produced by the c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s the d i m e n s i o n . (A graph of the e s t i m a t e s i s shown in F i g u r e 111 — 7 . ) The p a t t e r n r e v e a l s the presence of g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in C o n s e r v a t i v e s t r e n g t h of at tachments tha t r e f l e c t the e l e c t o r a l h i s t o r y of the p a r t y . Of a l l C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s , those born before 1905 h o l d the s t r o n g e s t t i e s to the p a r t y . These are people who had en tered the e l e c t o r a t e by 1926 and t h e r e f o r e had undergone t h e i r i n i t i a l exposure to the p o l i t i c a l world over a p e r i o d of t ime in which the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y was a. much s t r o n g e r p o l i t i c a l f o r c e than was the case in the years f o l l o w i n g . . The lowest l e v e l s of attachment to the p a r t y are shown by those c o h o r t s born between 1905 and 1935. These are people who came of v o t i n g age between 1926 and 1956 and thus underwent t h e i r i n i t i a l exposure to the p o l i t i c a l wor ld 87 T a b l e VI S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on C o n s e r v a t i v e S t r e n g t h (1 ) (2) (3) (4) P e r i o d 1979 1 974 1968 1965 01 05 10 - .24 - . 94 •1 .57 05 08 07 1.13 1 .47 1.11 02 - . 3 7 06 -1 .13 11 -1.71 .00 .03 .08 - . 0 5 - . 62 •1.21 Cohort 1953-58 - - .46 2 .03 - - - -1947-52 - - .37 1 .84 - . 0 0 - .03 - . 04 - . 4 6 1941-46 ' - - .33 1 .87 .03 .38 - . 0 3 - . 3 2 1935-40 - - .23 1 . 47 .00 .02 - . 0 8 - . 7 5 1929-34 - .03 - . 3 8 • ..17 1 .25 .01 . 1 5 - . 1 0 - . 7 5 1923-28 .00 . 05 . 1 4 1 .27 .04 .42 - . 0 8 - . 5 3 1917-22 .01 .05 .08 .92 .05 .38 - . 0 8 - . 4 9 1911-16 . 14 1.10 . 1 5 2 . 15 . 1 9 1 .30 .05 .27 1905-10 .01 .04 - - .06 .35 - . 0 9 - . 44 1899-1904 . 1 1 .66 - - . 1 7 .88 .03 . 13 1893-98 .41 2.12 - - .47 2 .22 .32 1.51 -1 892 .35 1 .65 - - .42 1 .80 .26 1 .23 Aqe 18-23 - - - - - - - . 1 5 -.91 24-29 .01 .09 .06 .81 - - - . 1 2 - . 8 0 30-35 . 05 .77 . 18 1 .91 - - - . 0 6 - . 44 36-41 .05 .62 .23 2 .08 - - - . 0 5 - . 4 7 42-47 .07 .73 .31 2 . 37 .02 .29 - . 0 2 - . 24 48-53 . 1 2 1.12 . 42 2 .79 .07 .81 .04 . 58 54-59 .07 . 53 .42 2 .38 .01 .09 - -60-65 .09 .61 .50 2 . 55 .03 ' .21 - -66-71 .07 .44 .61 2 .92 .01 .04 - -72 + .08 .43 .75 3 . 50 • .01 .06 - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .07 2.48 .07 2 .29 .07 2 .52 .07 2.49 O c c u p a t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l - .01 - . 1 9 - . 0 3 - . 50 - .01 - . 1 6 - . 0 2 - . 24 P r o p r i e t o r s .09 1 .52 .07 1 .20 .09 1 .55 .08 1 .50 C l e r i c a l .09 1 .58 .07 1 . 30 .09 1 .59 .09 1 .58 S k i l l e d .07 .1 .23 .05 .82 .07 1 .24 .07 1 .24 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 13 1 .93 . 1 1 1 .72 .13 1 .95 .12 1 .88 U n s k i l l e d .10 1 .57 .08 1 .30 . 1 0 1 .60 .10 1 .58 Farmers .01 .18 - .01 - .10 .01 .21 .01 .15 88 C l a s s Upper M i d d l e No C l a s s E d u c a t i o n R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c Other No r e l i g i o n Region A t l a n t i c Quebec West Constant . 1 6 2.74 .05 1 .67 .01 . 1 3 - .01 -1 .47 .05 1 .21 - . 2 2 -2 .16 - . 1 0 -1 .14 . 13 2.96 - . 1 8 -3 .18 - . 0 5 -1 .47 1 .99 1 9. 47 .16 2 .71 .05 1 .59 .02 .40 - .01 ' -1 . 46 .04 1 .07 - . 2 2 -2 .18 - . 1 0 - 1 . 14 .13 2 .89 - . 1 7 -2 .96 - . 0 5 -1 .44 1 .52 6 . 15 .05335 Coef f F . 020 3 .23 . 001 .76 .008 2 .25 .004 1 . 1 5 . 1 7 2 .79 .06 1 .71 .01 . 1 4 - .01 - 1 .55 .05 1 .15 - . 2 2 -2 . 17 - . 1 0 -1 . 1 4 . 1 3 2 .94 - . 1 8 -3 .20 - . 0 5 -1 .50 2.01 1 9 .75 .05817 Coef f F . 030 3 .49 . 00 1 1 . 1 4 .001 .25 .009 1 .96 .16 2.74 .05 1 .65 .01 .16 - .01 -1 .48 .05 1.22 - .21 -2 .12 - . 1 0 -1 .17 .13 2.90 - . 1 8 -3 .20 - . 0 5 -1.51 2.15 11.74 .05869 Coeff . F .030 3.43 .001 .76 .001 .46 .016 3.39 R 2 R 2 Change* (X) (Per iod) (Age) (Cohort) .05840 C o e f f . F .030 3.43 .001 1.02 .001 .26 .009 2.67 89 T a b l e VI (cont inued) (5) (6) (7) • (8) b t b t b t b t Per i od 1 979 - - - - - - - -1974 - . 0 0 - .06 - . 0 0 - . 0 7 - . 0 0 - .07 .00 .00 1968 - . 0 3 - .45 - . 0 3 - . 5 0 - . 0 3 - .51 - . 0 3 - . 4 2 1 965 - . 0 7 — .90 - . 0 7 - . 9 8 - . 0 7 - 1 .02 - . 0 7 - . 92 Cohort 1953-58 - - - . 2 8 - . 9 8 - - - . 24 - . 8 6 1947-52 - - - .31 -1 .14 - - - . 2 9 - 1.13 194 1-46 - . 0 0 - .07 - . 3 0 -1 .23 - .01 - .09 - . 28 - 1 .22 1935-40 4 - . 0 6 - .63 - . 3 5 -1 .57 - . 0 6 - .65 - .34 - 1 .64 1929-34 - . 0 7 - .64 - . 3 7 -1 .86 - . 0 7 - .65 - . 3 5 - 1 .95 1923-28 - . 0 6 - .40 - . 3 5 -1 .98 - . 0 6 - .40 - .34 - 2.11 1917-22 - . 0 7 - .39 - . 3 6 -2 .37 - . 0 6 - .39 - . 3 5 - 2.57 1911-16 .06 .31 - . 2 3 -1 .80 .06 .33 - .22 - 1 .9.9 1905-10 - . 0 8 - .38 - . 3 7 -3 .47 - . 0 8 - .37 - . 3 7 - 3.91 1899-1904 .01 . 06 - . 2 7 - 2 . 9 9 .03 . 1 1 - . 2 6 - 3.10 1893-98 .30 1 . 1 2 - - .32 1 .23 - --1 892 .24 .81 — — .26 1 .01 . - -Aqe 18-23 - - - - - . 1 6 - .73 - .20 - . 8 3 24-29 - - - - - . 14 - .67 - . 1 6 - .74 30-35 .07 1 .06 .07 1 .06 - . 0 8 - .43 - . 0 9 - . 4 9 36-41 .08 .89 .08 .87 - . 0 7 - .44 - . 0 9 - . 5 0 42-47- . 1 1 .97 . 1 1 .94 - . 04 - . 30 - . 0 5 - . 3 6 48-53 . 18 1 .26 .. 1 7 1 .23 .02 . 1 7 .01 . 1 1 54-59 . 1 3 .78 . 1 2 .75 - . 0 3 - .28 - .03 - . 3 3 60-65 . 1 6 .84 . 1 5 .80 .00 .03 - .00 - .01 66-71 . 1 5 .70 . 1 5 .69 - - - -72 + . 1 7 . 70 . 1 5 .61 - - - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .07 2 . 46 .07 2.48 . .07 2 .48 .07 2.49 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l - .01 - . 1 9 - .01 - . 1 6 - .01 - .20 - .01 - . 1 7 Propr i e t o r s .09 1 .52 .09 1 .56 .09 1 .53 .09 1 .56 C l e r i c a l .09 1 .59 .09 1 .62 .09 1 .60 .09 1 .65 S k i l l e d .07 1 .26 .08 1 .33 .07 1 .28 .08 1 .33 S e m i - S k i l l e d .13 1 .93 .13 1 .97 . 1 3 1 .93 . 1 3 1 .96 Unsk i 1 l e d . 1 0 1 .60 .10 1 .64 . 1 0 1 .61 .10 1 .65 Farmers .01 .20 .01 .24 .01 ."19 .01 .23 4 90 C l a s s Upper M i d d l e No C l a s s Educat ion R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c Other No r e l i g i o n Region A t l a n t i c Quebec West Constant R 2 R 2 Change* (X) ( P e r i o d ) (Age) (Cohort ) N=2298 .16 2 .73 .05 1 .66 .01 .18 - .01 -1 .51 .05 1 .20 - .21 -2 . 1 4 - . 1 0 -1 . 1 6 . 1 3 2 .89 - . 1 8 -3 .19 - . 0 5 -1 .52 1 .99 21 .17 .05866 C o e f f . F .030 3.41 .001 .44 .001 .33 .009 2.20 .16 2.73 .05 1.66 .01 .19 - .01 -1 .50 .05 - .21 - . 1 0 .13 2.89 - . 1 8 - 3 . 1 9 - . 0 5 -1 .53 2.29 7.72 .05855 Coef f F .030 3.43 .001 .52 .001 .34 .009 2.17 . 1 6 .74 . 05 1 .66 .01 . 18 - .01 " 1 .49 .05 1 .21 - .21 -2 . 1 5 - . 1 0 . 1 5 .13 2 .89 - . 1 8 -3 . 19 - .05 -1 .51 2.15 9 .84 .05868 Coef f F .030 3 .42 .001 .54 .001 . 34 .010 2 .44 . 16 2 .73 .05 1 . 65 .01 .19 - .01 -1 .47 .05 1 .21 - .21 -2 . 1 4 - . 1 0 -1 . 17 . 1 3 2 .89 - . 1 8 -3 .19 - . 0 5 - 1 .52 2.43 26 .59 .05864 Coef f F .030 3 .43 .001 .51 .001 • . 36 .010 2 .43 •1.19 -2 .14 -1 .17 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. Figure III-7: Cohort Estimates of Strength of Conservative Identifications, Models 1 - 8 1.5 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i < = i 1953 47 41 35 29 23 17 11 5 99 93 1887 Cohort (in 6 year groups) Figure 111-8: Age Estimates of Strength of Conservative Identifications. Models 1-8 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 Age (in 6 year groups) 92 d u r i n g the p e r i o d when the p a r t y ' s e l e c t o r a l performance was at i t s lowest p o i n t . Cohor t s born a f t e r 1935 ( i . e . they e n t e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e i n or a f t e r 1956) show a modest ly i n c r e a s i n g tendency toward s t r o n g e r t i e s wi th the p a r t y . In s h o r t , the p a t t e r n a c r o s s the cohor t d imension corresponds c l o s e l y w i th the e l e c t o r a l h i s t o r y of the p a r t y . The s i m i l a r i t y between the h i s t o r i c a l e l e c t o r a l showing of the p a r t y and g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s c l e a r . F u r t h e r , the r e s u l t s r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y that the l o n g - t e r m performance of the p a r t y has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . These r e s u l t s suggest an e x p l a n a t i o n of g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h d i f f e r e n t from the s tandard argument c e n t e r e d on v a r i a t i o n s in the compet iveness of the p a r t y system. Rather than the i n t e n s i t y of the p a r t i s a n debate between p a r t i e s be ing the d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r , g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h may be the product of p a r t y per formance . T u r n i n g to age , the net c o n t r i b u t i o n made by age to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . M o r e o v e r , no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s the age dimension i s pre sen t in any models . (See F i g u r e 111-8 . ) In s h o r t , the a g i n g h y p o t h e s i s r e c e i v e s scant support h e r e . However, the shape of the p a t t e r n produced by the c o e f f i c i e n t s of the age c a t e g o r i e s for models 4 through 8 does i n d i c a t e a very modest p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h , thus warning a g a i n s t o u t r i g h t r e j e c t i o n of the 93 argument. On balance however, the e x p l a n a t i o n of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h p r o v i d e d by the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s not u s e f u l in a c c o u n t i n g for the p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s . No ev idence suggests that C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h f l u c t u a t e s in the s h o r t - t e r m . The p e r i o d d imens ion does not make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the t o t a l v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d nor i s there any s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the dimension in any of the models . A l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l , the average l e v e l of s t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s d i d not change over the four e l e c t i o n s covered in t h i s a n a l y s i s . When the e s t i m a t i o n was r e p l i c a t e d without the p e r i o d dimension the p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s c o n t i n u e to h o l d (see T a b l e V I I ) . The p a t t e r n a c r o s s the cohor t d imens ion remains and the dimension i t s e l f c o n t i n u e s to account for .9% of the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d . S i m i l a r l y , the p a t t e r n a c r o s s the age dimension remains s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e , but the dimension as a whole s t i l l f a i l s to be s i g n i f i c a n t . S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on the S t r e n g t h of NDP  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s At the outset , , i t must be s t a t e d that the c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of the s t r e n g t h component of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i s s e v e r e l y hampered by the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number of cases wi th which we have to work. The e s t i m a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e V I I I are based on 961 NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . The problem i s 94 Tab le VII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC P a r t y S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) b t b t Cohort Age 1953-58 • 18-23 1947-52 24-29 1 94.1-46 - . 0 3 - . 5 0 30-35 .09 1 .51 1935-40 - . 1 0 - 1 . 4 9 36-41 .12 1 .67 1929-34 - . 14 -1 .74 42-47 .18 2 .07 1923-28 - .14 - 1 . 52 48-53 . 26 2 .74 1917-22 - . 1 8 -1 .73 54-59 .24. 2 .24 1911-16 - . 0 7 - . 6 3 60-65 .29 2 .46 1905-10 - .24 -1 .92 66-71 . 30 2 .29 1899-1904 - . 1 6 - 1 . 1 8 72 + . 36 2 .48 1893-98 . 1 1 .73 -1892 .02 . 1 4 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .07 2.48 E d u c a t i o n - .008 - 1 .55 Occupat ion R e l i g i o n P r o f e s s i ona1 - .01 - . 1 3 C a t h o l i c .05 1 . 1 8 Propr i e t o r s .09 1 .70 Other - .21 -2 .08 C l e r i c a l .09 1 . 68 No R e l i g i o n - . 1 0 - 1 . 1 4 S k i l l e d .07 1.31 Region Semi-Sk i 1 l e d . 1 3 2.11 A t l a n t i c . 1 3 2 .88 Unski l i e d . 1 1 1 .74 Quebec - . 1 8 -3 ,19 Farmers .02 .28 West - . 0 5 - 1 .51 C l a s s Upper . 1 6 2.7 2 M i d d l e .06 1 .72 No C l a s s .02 .25 Constant 1 .99 21 .30 R 2 .058 R2 Change* C o e f f . F (X) .02 6 3. 42 (Cohort ) .009 2.21 (Age) . 004 1 .09 N=2298 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l -s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 95 tha t when the age and c o h o r t d imens ions are p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o s i x year groups , some groups in each dimens ion c o n t a i n a very s m a l l number of c a s e s . For example, on the age dimension the groups 54-59, 60-65, 66-71 and 72 and over c o n t a i n 72, 66, 40 and 26 cases r e s p e c t i v e l y . On the c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n , the groups 1916-1911, 1910-1905, 1904-1899, 1898-1893 and 1892 and be fore c o n t a i n 70, 50, 40, 20 and 10 cases r e s p e c t i v e l y . The smal l number of cases in these c a t e g o r i e s may a f f e c t the a n a l y s i s . I t w i l l c e r t a i n l y reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups . Moreover , i t i n c r e a s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the groups may not be very r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the a c t u a l p o p u l a t i o n of NDP i d e n t i f i e r s in those c a t e g o r i e s . There i s no s a t i s f a c t o r y way of overcoming t h i s prob lem. C o n c e i v a b l y the c a t e g o r i e s c o u l d be broadened to 10 or 15 year spans to i n c r e a s e the number of cases in each c a t e g o r y , but we we would lo se the i n f o r m a t i o n that might be o b t a i n e d from the f i n e r d i v i s i o n of each d i m e n s i o n . I t was d e c i d e d to use the same d i v i s i o n of c a t e g o r i e s as in the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s . Look ing f i r s t at the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , i t i s apparent that on ly reg ion has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the s t r e n g t h of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . In p a r t i c u l a r , NDP i d e n t i f i e r s from Quebec are weaker p a r t i s a n s than are s u p p o r t e r s of the p a r t y who r e s i d e elsewhere in the c o u n t r y . The NDP has never been a s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i t i c a l f orce i n Quebec and t h i s r e s u l t i s 96 p r o b a b l y a r e f l e c t i o n of t h i s h i s t o r i c a l f a c t . Apar t from t h i s , no o ther s o c i a l v a r i a b l e has a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the s t r e n g t h of NDP p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . T u r n i n g to the demographic v a r i a b l e s , the r e s u l t s of the e s t i m a t i o n s of a l l e i g h t models show that the age, p e r i o d , and cohor t d imens ions do not make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n of the s t r e n g t h of NDP p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . Of the t h r e e , the c o h o r t d imens ion has a l a r g e r r e l a t i v e impact than age or p e r i o d and the v a r i a t i o n on that d imens ion i s g r e a t e r than found on the o ther two d i m e n s i o n s . Of the e i g h t models , the r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t for a l l but models 1 and 6. The f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n i s based on the r e s u l t s of the s i x c o n s i s t e n t models . An i n s p e c t i o n of the e s t i m a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h i n the p e r i o d d imens ion r e v e a l s no s i g n i f i c a n t y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n in NDP p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . However', the 1979 l e v e l appears to be somewhat h igher than in o ther y e a r s . With respec t to age, the p a t t e r n a c r o s s t h i s d imension i n d i c a t e s a modest n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t y s t r e n g t h . T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y o p p o s i t e to e x p e c t a t i o n s based on the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A l though the r e s u l t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t , they are noteworthy because of t h e i r complete l a c k of support for the age h y p o t h e s i s . (See F i g u r e III-9.) Table V I I I S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP Part i san S t r e n q t h (1 ) (2) (3) (4) b t b t • b t b t P e r i o d 1979 - - - - - - -1 974 - . 0 0 - .03 - . 02 - .22 - .01 - . 2 0 - .01 .21 1968 - .01 - . 1 6 - . 0 7 - .73 - .06 - . 7 9 - . 0 7 - .70 1 965 .00 .02 - . 0 7 - .63 - .07 - .71 - . 0 7 - .65 Cohort 1953-58 - - - . 2 7 - .75 - - -1947-52 - - - . 3 5 -1 .07 - .10 -1 . 05 - . 0 8 - .18 1941-46 - - . 1 9 - .67 .06 .88. .08 . 63 1935-40 - - - . 22 - .88 .04 .44 .05 .•30 1929-34 .09 .89 - . 0 9 - .42 .19 1 .64 .18 . 9 1 1923-28 - . 0 5 - .40 - . 2 0 -1 . 10 .07 .55 .07 . 03 1917-22 .04 .26 - . 0 9 - .62 .18 1.05 . 1 7 .65 1 9 1 1 - 1 6 .09 .52 - .01 - .06 .26 1.27 .25 .84 1905-10 .07 .31 - - .25 1.04 .23 .73 1899-1904 . 1 5 .57 - - .36 1.27 .37 1 . 1 1 1893-98 - . 2 0 - .64 - - .03 .10 .08 .23 -1892 - . 1 6 - .4 1 — — .09 .23 . 32 .84 Aqe 18-23 - - - - .05 . 18 24-29 - . 0 6 - .76 - . 0 5 - .53 - - . 0 0 - . 00 30-35 .06 .70 . 02 . 1 3 - .07 1 "3 . ~> O 36-41 .07 .65 - .01 - .03 - .04 . 27 42-47 . 1 0 .78 .01 .03 .01 .13 . 06 .43 48-53 .07 . .44 - . 0 5 - .23 - .04 - . 3 7 .00 . 04 54-59 . 1 1 .63 - . 04 - .13 - .02 - . 14 - -60-65 .06 .30 - . 0 8 - .27 - .10 - . 4 9 -66-71 . 1 0 .40 - . 1 5 - .43 - .08 - .31 - -72 + .39 1 .26 .08 .22 .19 .60 - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .07 1 .57 .07 1 .47 .07 1 .54 .07 1 . 50 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l . 1 4 1 .32 . 1 4 1 .31' . 1 4 1 .34 . 1 4 1 . 34 Propr i e t o r s .04 .45 .04 .45 .05 .51 .05 .49 C l e r i c a l - . 0 0 - .04 - . 0 0 - .04 - .01 - .05 .00 .01 S k i l l e d .09 1 .02 .09 1 .06 .09 1 .02 .09 1 . 07 S e m i - S k i l l e d .17 1 .7.3 .17 1 .74 .18 1 .78 . 17 1 .78 U n s k i l i e d .09 .99 .09 .98 .09 .99 .09 .99 Farmers - . 1 8 -1 .48 - . 1 7 -1 .42 - . 1 6 -1 .33 - . 1 7 -1 .40 98 C l a s s Upper M i d d l e No C l a s s Educat ion R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c Other No r e l i g i o n Region A t l a n t i c Quebec West Constant R 2 - . 04 - .39 .06 1 .27 . 1 1 .98 - .01 - 1 .52 - .01 - . 1 2 .02 . 1 4 .05 .62 - . 0 6 - .55 - . 3 0 -3 .78 - . 04 - .84 2.25 1 4 .73 .07126 - .04 - .33 .06 1 .30 . 1 0 .91 - .01 -1 .41 - . 00 - .06 - .01 - .04 .04 .60 - . 0 7 - .65 - .31 -3 .87 - .04 - .76 2. 53 6 . 1 1 .07059 Coeff F .040 2 .35 .001 .21 .003 . 36 .006 .75 - .04 - .39 .07 1 .36 . 1 1 .97 - .01 -1 .51 - .01 - .10 .03 . 19 .04 .52 - . 0 6 - .58 - . 30 -3 .86 - .04 - .79 2.26 1 5 .26 .07297 Coeff F .040 2.38 .001 .24 .003 .47 .012 1.15 - . 04 - . 4 1 .07 1 .39 .10 .89 - .01 -1. .40 - . 0 0 - .02 .01 .07 .04 .59 - . 0 5 - .50 - .31 -3 .87 - . 04 - .78 2.21 7 .92 .07128 Coef f F .040 2 .35 .001 .20 . 001 . 1 9 . 009 .81 R 2 Change* Coef f . F (X) . 040 2.36 (Per iod) .000 .02 (Age) . 006 .63 (Cohort) .007 .84 99 T a b l e V I I I ( cont inued) (5) (6) (7) (8) b t b t b t b t Per i od 1 97 9 - - - - - - - -1 974 - .01 - . 1 6 .00 - 06 - . 0 3 - .41 - .02 - .21 1968 - . 0 5 - . 5 3 - . 0 2 - .21 - . 10 - 1.01 - . 0 8 - .73 1 965 - . 0 5 - . 4 0 - .01 - . 1 0 - .11 - . 9 2 - . 0 8 - .65 Cohort 1953-58 - - .17 . 38 - - . 1 8 - .39 1947-52 - - .05 . 1 2 - - - . 2 6 - .61 1941-46 . 1 1 1.14 . 19 .50 . 1 5 1 .51 - . 1 0 - .25 1935-40 . 06 .49 . 1 4 . 38 . 1 4 1 .02 - . 1 2 - .35 1929-34 .20 1.12 .25 . 77 .28 1 . 60 .01 .04 1923-28 .07 .34 .12 .40 . 18* .85 - . 1 0 - . 34 1917-22 . 1 7 .70 .21 .78 .30 1 .22 .02 .07 1911-16 .25 .86 . 27 1.15 .39 1 . 36 . 1 0 .45 1905-10 . 23 . 72 .24 1.14 .39 1.21 .09 .47 1899-1904 .33 .88 . . 33 1.81 .56 1 .50 .25 1 .40 1893-98 .01 .01 - - .24 . 56 - --1892 .06 . 12 — - .47 1 .07 - -Aqe 1 8-23 - - - . 1 6 .45 . 06 . 1 7 24-29 - - - - .08 .23 .01 .04 30-35 .05 . 52 .08 .82 .13 .43' .08 .24 36-41 .04 . 33 . 08 .60 . 1 0 .37 . 05 . 1 9 42-47 .06 . 37 . 1 1 . 64 . 1 0 .41 .06 .24 48-53 .01 .04 .07 . 34 . 03 . 1 3 - . 0 0 - .01 54-59 .04 . 1 6 . 11 .45 .04 .20 .02 .09 60-65 - . 03 - .11 . 06 .20 - . 0 6 - .45 - . 08 - .51 66-7 1 - .01 - . 0 3 .09 .26 - - - -72 + . 26 .64 .39 .97 - - - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .07 1 . 50 .07 1 . 59 .07 1 .50 .07 1 .49 O c c u p a t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l . 1 3 1.18 . 1 5 1 .34 . 1 4 1 .27 . 1 4 1 .29 P r o p r i e t o r s .04 .36 .05 .51 .04 .40 .04 .42 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 0 7 - . 0 0 - . 04 - . 0 0 - . 0 3 - .01 - .08 S k i l l e d .08 .92 .09 1 . 03 .09 1 .00 .09 .98 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 1 7 1 .69 .18 1.81 . 17 1.71 . 1 7 1 .69 U n s k i l l e d .09 .92 .09 1 .00 .09 .94 .08 .89 Farmers - . 18 -1 .47 - . 1 6 -1 .35 - . 1 7 - 1.41 - . 17 - 1 .42 1 00 C l a s s Upper - . 0 3 - .31 - .04 - .41 - . 04 - . 3 5 - . 04 - .40 M i d d l e .07 1 .34 .06 1 .32 .07 1 .36 .06 1 .29 No C l a s s . 1 2 1 .03 . 1 1 .95 . 1 1 .94 .10 .85 E d u c a t i o n - .01 -1 .48 - .01 -1 .48 - .01 -1 .45 - .01 -1 .45 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 0 0 - .06 - .01 - . 12 - . 0 0 - .01 - . 0 0 - .05 Other .02 .18 .02 .18 .01 .08 - . 0 0 - .01 No r e l i g i o n .04 .55 .04 .52 .05 .67 .05 .64 Region . A t l a n t i c - . 0 6 .56 - . 0 6 - .56 - . 0 6 - . 5 5 - . 0 6 - .52 Quebec - . 3 0 -3 .83 - . 3 0 -3 .80 - .31 - 3 . 9 1 - . 3 0 -3 .85 West - .04 - .77 - .04 - .77 - . 04 - . 8 5 - . 04 - .76 Constant 2.20 15 .17 2.08 4 .35 2.09 6.18 2.39 1 3 .47 R 2 .07214 .07361 .07140 .07106 R 2 Change* C o e f f . F Coef f F Coef f F Coef f F (X) .040 2. 35 .040 2 . 38 .040 2.36 .040 2 . 34 (Per iod) .000 1 0 .000 .03 .001 .37 .001 .21 (Age) .003 39 .004 . 55 .002 . 30 .002 .23 (Cohort ) .008 81 .010 .96 .009 .88 .009 .85 N=961 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. Figure 111-9: Age Estimates of Strength of NDP Identification, Models 1 - 8 T a b l e IX S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP P a r t y S t r e n g t h ( E x c l u d i n g P e r i o d E f f e c t s ) b t b t_ Cohort Age 1 953-58 18-23 1947-52 24-29 1941-46 .08 1 . 04 30-35 .07 .85 1935-40 .02 .23 36-41 .08 .80 1 929-34 .13 1.13 42-47 . 12 .98 1923-28 - .01 - . 04 48-53 .08 .61 1917-22 .08 .52 54-59 .13 .84 1911-16 . 1 4 .82 60-65 .08 .45 1905-10 .11 .56 66-71 . 1 1 .54 1899-1904 . 1 8 .87 72 + .41 1 . 54 1893-98 - . 1 6 - . 6 3 -1892 - . 12 - . 3 5 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .07 1 .52 E d u c a t i o n - .01 1 .44 Occupat ion R e l i g i on P r o f e s s i o n a l . 1 3 1.21 ' C a t h o l i c - . 00 - .07 Propr i e t o r s .04 .38 Other . 02 . 1 8 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 1 0 No R e l i g i o n .04 . 55 S k i l l e d .08 .89 Reg i on Semi -Sk i l i e d . 1 7 1 .79 A t l a n t i c - . 0 6 - .52 U n s k i l l e d .09 .95 Quebec - . 3 0 3 .84 Farmers - . 1 8 -1 .57 West - .04 - .74 C l a s s Upper - . 04 - . 3 5 M i d d l e . .07 1 . 36 No C l a s s .12 1 .04 Constant 2.19 15.38 R 2 .072 R2 Change* C o e f f . F (X) .043 2.40 (Cohort) .008 .79 (Age) .004 .51 N=961 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of a l l s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 103 The p a t t e r n on the cohor t d imens ion i n d i c a t e s g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in NDP s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . E a r l i e r c o h o r t s of NDP i d e n t i f i e r s h o l d s t r o n g e r t i e s to the p a r t y than l a t e r c o h o r t s . (See F i g u r e 111- 10 . ) T h i s p a t t e r n suggests that the e f f e c t s of the D e p r e s s i o n may have had a l a s t i n g impact on those c i t i z e n s who adopted the CCF as t h e i r p a r t y at that t i m e . The CCF p l a t f o r m might have been p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e to many people who had seen the e x i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l and economic system f a i l . Those people who moved to the p a r t y d u r i n g the D e p r e s s i o n , may have done so w i t h a ' p a r t i c u l a r l y s t rong commitment a r i s i n g out of the n a t u r e ' o f the t imes of that p e r i o d . Whi le s p e c u l a t i v e , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th the h i s t o r y of the p a r t y . As a check on these r e s u l t s , the e s t i m a t i o n was repeated without the p e r i o d d i m e n s i o n . The r e s u l t s remain unchanged (see T a b l e I X ) . The p a t t e r n s a c r o s s the age and c o h o r t d imens ions are as d e s c r i b e d above, and both d imens ions c o n t i n u e to f a i l to make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d . To summarize, the a n a l y s i s showed that age, p e r i o d and c o h o r t do not have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . F u r t h e r , there was no ev idence of s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s each d i m e n s i o n . N o n e t h e l e s s , the r e s u l t s w i t h i n each dimens ion o f f e r e d no support for the a g e - g a i n h y p o t h e s i s but d i d suggest the presence of g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in NDP s t r e n g t h of 1 04 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . C o n c l u s i o n The goa l of t h i s c h a p t e r was to determine which of the three competing e x p l a n a t i o n s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h r e c e i v e d e m p i r i c a l support by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h and age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t . APC a n a l y s e s were conducted f i r s t , f or a l l p a r t i s a n s g e n e r a l l y a n d . t h e n for i d e n t i f i e r s wi th each of the three major p a r t i e s . With re spec t to the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the expected p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h c h a r a c t e r i z e d ( a l t h o u g h in an a t t e n u a t e d form) L i b e r a l p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h but d i d not appear in our a n a l y s e s of C o n s e r v a t i v e and NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . The i n s i g n i f i c a n c e of age in the g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s of a l l i d e n t i f i e r s may be a t t r i b u t e d to the d i f f e r i n g r e s u l t s between p a r t i e s . In l i g h t of these r e s u l t s , the g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n must be that the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has only l i m i t e d u t i l i t y in e x p l a i n i n g the s t r e n g t h of the p a r t y at tachments of Canadian i d e n t i f i e r s . The a n a l y s i s a l s o u n d e r l i n e d the l i m i t a t i o n s of the g e n e r a t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . G e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s were found for C o n s e r v a t i v e and , as best we can d e t e r m i n e , for NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . However, c o h o r t v a r i a t i o n was not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r in the a n a l y s i s of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s or in the g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s of a l l i d e n t i f i e r s . 105 Regard ing the t h i r d e x p l a n a t i o n for p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h , there was l i t t l e ev idence of s h o r t - t e r m f l u c t u a t i o n s in the aggregate l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . S i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s were absent in a l l a n a l y s e s . These r e s u l t s are unexpected and p u z z l i n g . Both the g e n e r a l i t y of the arguments themselves and r e s u l t s from comparable American ana lyse s l e a d to the assumption tha t p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s the product of proces se s common to a l l i d e n t i f i e r s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t was expected that the p r e c e d i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n would have r e v e a l e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s wi th r e s p e c t to the r e l a t i v e importance o f age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t e f f e c t s on p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h for a l l i d e n t i f i e r s i r r e s p e c t i v e of the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r p a r t y t i e . C l e a r l y t h i s i s not the case . None of the d e m o g r a p h i c - r e l a t e d e x p l a n a t i o n s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h has g e n e r a l m e r i t . In fact-, the most s t r i k i n g and important • f e a t u r e of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s the absence of c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s a c r o s s p a r t i e s . Whi le the age and g e n e r a t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h r e c e i v e s u p p o r t , the u t i l i t y of each e x p l a n a t i o n v a r i e s between p a r t i e s . T h i s f i n d i n g must r a i s e a f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n . Why in the same p a r t y system do we f i n d support for competing e x p l a n a t i o n s of the same phenomenon? The answer to t h i s q u e s t i o n must await the r e s u l t s of the r e s t of the a n a l y s e s . In the c o n c l u d i n g c h a p t e r , we w i l l argue that the p a t t e r n s of both the s t r e n g t h and d i r e c t i o n of 1 06 p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are u n d e r s t a n d a b l e when viewed i n the contex t of p a r t y h i s t o r y . 107 F o o t n o t e s 1. The i n t e n s i t y measure i s coded as f o l l o w s ; 1=not very s t r o n g , 2 = f a i r l y s t r o n g l y , 3=very s t r o n g l y . Only p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s are i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s . 2. John E n g l i s h , The D e c l i n e of P o l i t i c s : The  C o n s e r v a t i v e s and the P a r t y System 1901-20, ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1977). 3. R e c a l l that the r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s are as f o l l o w s : for gender - males; o c c u p a t i o n - ' those not i n the w o r k f o r c e ' ; s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l c l a s s - 'working c l a s s ' ; r eg ion - O n t a r i o ; r e l i g i o n - ' P r o t e s t a n t s ' . See Chapter II f or a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n . 4. A l though on ly t h r e e c o e f f i c i e n t s in the matr ix of independent v a r i a b l e s are above 0 .4 , and none i s above 0 .7 , the two demographic d imens ions as a whole are p r o b a b l y s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d . I t . i s for t h i s reason that e igh t separate models are e s t i m a t e d . See Chapter II for d e t a i l s . 5. Brody argues that p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s in p a r t an assessment of the c u r r e n t a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the p a r t y . See R i c h a r d A . Brody , " S t a b i l i t y and Change in P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : P r e s i d e n t i a l to O f f - Y e a r s " , Paper prepared for the annual meet ing of the American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, 1977, p. 54. 6. The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s for age and cohor t groups are found i n Appendix I . 7. However, the amount of v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d by the age d imens ion i n c r e a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y wi th the p e r i o d dimension o m i t t e d (from .4% to 1.1%) sugges t ing an i n t e r a c t i o n between the two. 108 CHAPTER IV AN AGE-PERIOD-COHORT ANALYSIS OF THE DIRECTION OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION The s t a b i l i t y of the p a r t y t i e depends on i t s i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n over t ime . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the f a i l u r e to f i n d much ev idence of l i f e c y c l e g a i n s in p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y r e p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s mark a g a i n s t the t h e o r y . F u r t h e r , i t r a i s e s doubts as to whether the t h e o r y ' s p r e d i c t i o n s w i th r e s p e c t to p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n w i l l be met. T h i s c h a p t e r searches for s u p p o r t i n g ev idence for the e x p l a n a t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n of the p a r t y t i e g iven by the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . R e c a l l that the theory p r e d i c t s tha t p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n i s a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d matter wh i l e o ther arguments suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th age and wi th p e r i o d . The a n a l y s i s determines i f any of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s r e c e i v e e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t . We begin by b r i e f l y s t a t i n g the e x p e c t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d wi th each of the arguments and then proceed to the f u l l a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n . A n a l y s i s The d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may be a f f e c t e d by one ' s p o s i t i o n in the l i f e c y c l e . The argument assumes that people become more c o n s e r v a t i v e as they age and, as a 109 consequence , that the l i k e l i h o o d of an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th a p a r t y of the r i g h t i n c r e a s e s moving from youth to o l d age . At the aggregate l e v e l , i f the average age of the p o p u l a t i o n s h i f t s , becoming e i t h e r o l d e r or younger, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sh ou ld s h i f t a c c o r d i n g l y . The argument p r e d i c t s age d i f f e r e n c e s in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . In an a n a l y s i s of c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l data from 1974, 1979, and 1980, Johnston r e p o r t s f i n d i n g a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p for C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s , a nega t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p for NDP i d e n t i f i e r s , and no r e l a t i o n s h i p for L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s w i th r e s p e c t to a g e . 1 Whi le the r e s u l t s may be i n t e r p r e t e d in terms of e i t h e r age or c o h o r t v a r i a t i o n , they r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y tha t age d i f f e r e n c e s might be found in the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s . A d i f f e r e n t outcome i s p o s s i b l e when p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s seen as an a t t i t u d e that i s very r e s p o n s i v e to c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l s t i m u l i . As such , i t may be an attachment of l i m i t e d d u r a t i o n . For example, the au thors of a major study of p a r t i s a n s h i p in Canada argue that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are f l e x i b l e r a t h e r than s t a b l e and tend to t r a v e l with the v o t e . 2 I f t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s a c c u r a t e , s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s shou ld appear in the a n a l y s e s and the p a t t e r n of v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s the p e r i o d d imens ion should resemble the p a t t e r n of v a r i a t i o n in the vote a c r o s s the four s u r v e y s . n o I f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s respond to s h o r t - t e r m f o r c e s , then s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s shou ld be found in the APC a n a l y s i s . The p a t t e r n a c r o s s the p e r i o d dimension sh ou ld f o l l o w the f l u c t u a t i o n in the v o t e . Prima f a c i e ev idence that t h i s may be the case i s found by comparing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the vote in the samples (see T a b l e X) w i t h the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (Table X I ) . In most i n s t a n c e s , there i s a c l o s e correspondence between the vote and p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the four p o i n t s in t i m e . (The e x c e p t i o n s are for the L i b e r a l s i n 1974 and 1979). G e n e r a l l y , a change in the percentage of the p a r t y vote from one p o i n t in time to the next i s accompanied by a c o r r e s p o n d i n g change in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a l t h o u g h not n e c e s s a r i l y of the same magnitude. A c c o r d i n g to the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the d i r e c t i o n of the p a r t y t i e i s a g e n e r a t i o n a l ( cohor t ) phenomenon. Most people deve lop a sense of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y when they are young and m a i n t a i n that t i e t h e r e a f t e r . The d i r e c t i o n of the p a r t y t i e i s shaped by the nature of the p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s to which each c o h o r t of i n d i v i d u a l s i s exposed d u r i n g i t s format ive stage of p a r t i s a n development. In terms of the i n d i v i d u a l l i f e c y c l e , the development of a sense of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o c c u r s over a p e r i o d of time r a n g i n g from ado le scence to e a r l y a d u l t h o o d . 111 T a b l e X D i s t r i b u t i o n of F e d e r a l V o t e , 1965-1979 1965 1968 1 974 1979 L i b e r a l 38.0% 46.5% 40.3% 34.3% Conservat ive 25.5 . 23.0 23.6 31.3 NDP 11.1 9.9 9.3 12.8 Other /None 25.4 20.5 26.8 21.7 N=( ) (2118) (2764) (2552) (2682) T a b l e XI D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , 1965- 1 979 1965 1968 1974 1979 L i b e r a l 37% 46% 46% 42% Conservat ive 26 24 22 28 NDP 1 0 9 9 12 Other /None 27 ' 21 2 3 18 N=( ) (2118) (2764) (2552) ( 2682 G e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th a p a r t y w i l l a f f e c t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y l o y a l t i e s over t i m e . Change in the membership of a p o p u l a t i o n over time i s i n e v i t a b l e due to the n a t u r a l proces se s of b i r t h and d e a t h . 3 A change in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y l o y a l t i e s may occur over time through change in the membership of the s o c i e t y . The c o h o r t replacement h y p o t h e s i s i s the mainstay of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . I t o f f e r s a way of e x p l a i n i n g a rea l ignment in the p a r t y system without damaging the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a l o n g - t e r m p s y c h o l o g i c a l commitment to a p a r t y . Real ignments come from the replacement of o l d c o h o r t s by new c o h o r t s of d i f f e r e n t p a r t i s a n o r i e n t a t i o n s r a t h e r than through the 1 1 2 c o n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n g p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . " Where a p a r t y ' s f o r t u n e s have f l u c t u a t e d h i s t o r i c a l l y , the p a t t e r n of the e s t i m a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s a c r o s s the c o h o r t d imens ion should r e f l e c t the l o n g - t e r m p a t t e r n of support for the p a r t y . The l i k e l i h o o d tha t young i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l come to i d e n t i f y w i th a p a r t y w i l l be g r e a t e r when the party ' -s e l e c t o r a l performance i s s t r o n g e r than when i t i s weaker. The e l e c t o r a l r e c o r d of the three p a r t i e s i s shown in T a b l e X I I . The data are the vote f o r each p a r t y from 1896 to 1980, expressed as a percentage of the t o t a l e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n . 5 Looking f i r s t at the L i b e r a l r e c o r d , i t i s obv ious that L i b e r a l support has been remarkably s t a b l e in t h i s c e n t u r y . There are no p r o l o n g e d p e r i o d s of obvious weakness which might mark d i s t i n c t eras in the p a r t y ' s e l e c t o r a l h i s t o r y . C o n s e q u e n t l y , there i s no reason to expect v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s c o h o r t s in the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s . 6 In c o n t r a s t to the L i b e r a l r e c o r d , C o n s e r v a t i v e e l e c t o r a l support has f l u c t u a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . G e n e r a l l y the v a r i a t i o n can be d i v i d e d i n t o three p e r i o d s . In the f i r s t , rang ing from 1896 to 1930 i n c l u s i v e , C o n s e r v a t i v e support was f a i r l y s t a b l e and n e a r l y equal to that r e c e i v e d by the L i b e r a l s . H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h i s was the s t r o n g e s t p e r i o d of C o n s e r v a t i v e support w i t h an average of 33% of the vote of the e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n . C o n s e r v a t i v e for tunes f e l l d r a m a t i c a l l y in the e l e c t i o n of 1935 to j u s t above 20% of 1 1 3 T a b l e XII D i s t r i b u t i o n of the V o t e , 1 896- 1980* L i b e r a l P . C . CCF 0 NDP Other Nonvoters Year 1896 28.4% 29. 1% 5.41% 37.1% 1 900 40.3 36.7 - 0.46 22.6 1 904 37.2 33.7 - 0.72 28.4 1 908 35.6 33.0 - 1 .7 29.7 1911 33.6 35.9 - 0.7 29.8 1917 30. 1 42.8 - 2.2 25.0 1 921 27.8 20.7 - 11.8 31.8 1 925 26. 4 30.9 - 9.1 33.6 1 926 31.2 30.7 - 5.8 32.3 1 930 33.4 3-5.8 - 4.3 26.5 1 935 33. 3 21.9 6.6 12.3 25.8 1 940 35.5 21.2 5.9 6.4 31.0 1 945 30.9 20.6 11.7 12.0 24.7 1 949 36.5 21.9 9.9 5.5 26.2 1 953 33.0 20.9 7.6 6.0 32.5 1 957 30.3 28.8 7.9 7.0 26.0 1958 26.7 42.6 7.5 2.6 20.6 1 962 29.7 29.7 11.2 9.6 19.9 1963 33.7 26.5 10.5 9.8 19.7 1 965 30.4 23.5 13.5 7 . 1 24. 1 . 1 968 34 . 1 23.5 12.7 4.6 24.3 1 972 28.6 26.0 13.2 6.6 23.3 1 974 30. 1 24.7 10.8 4.2 29.0 1 979 30. 2 27.0 13.5 4.6 24.2 1 980 30. 6 22.4 13.6 2.4 30.7 Mean 31.5 28.8 10.6 5.7 27.0 S . D . 3.91 6.65 2.68 3.58 4.38 *Source: F i g u r e s from 1896 to 1958 are c a l c u l a t e d from data p r e s e n t e d in Howard Scarrow, Canada V o t e s : A Handbook of  F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l E l e c t i o n D a t a , (New O r l e a n s , Hauser P r e s s , 1962) . F i g u r e s from 1962 to 1980 were c a l c u l a t e d from data i n The Report of the C h i e f E l e c t o r a l O f f i c e r . 1 14 the e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n and remained at that l e v e l u n t i l a f t e r the 1953 e l e c t i o n . T h i s second p e r i o d , from 1935 to 1953, marked the lowest l e v e l of p o p u l a r support i n the p a r t y ' s h i s t o r y . The t h i r d p e r i o d beg ins w i t h the D i e f e n b a k e r v i c t o r y in 1957 and c o n t i n u e s through to 1980. When the massive v i c t o r y of 1958 i s e x c l u d e d , C o n s e r v a t i v e support in t h i s p e r i o d averaged 26% of the e l e c t o r a t e , r e p r e s e n t i n g a 6 percentage p o i n t i n c r e a s e over the p r e c e d i n g p e r i o d . 7 The h i s t o r i c a l f l u c t u a t i o n s in C o n s e r v a t i v e support should be r e f l e c t e d in the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s as v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s c o h o r t s . Older c o h o r t s shou ld be more C o n s e r v a t i v e than a l l other . c o h o r t s , c o h o r t s whose p o l i t i c a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n took p l a c e in the p e r i o d between 1935 and 1957 should be l e a s t d i s p o s e d to i d e n t i f y w i t h the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y , and c o h o r t s e n t e r i n g the e l e c t o r a t e a f t e r the D ie fenbaker v i c t o r y in 1957 shou ld be more C o n s e r v a t i v e than the p r e v i o u s group but l e s s C o n s e r v a t i v e than the o l d e s t c o h o r t s . Of the three p a r t i e s examined in t h i s a n a l y s i s , the. C o n s e r v a t i v e p a t t e r n of support has f l u c t u a t e d the most. C o n s e q u e n t l y , cohor t v a r i a t i o n shou ld be ev ident in the a n a l y s i s . F a i l u r e to f i n d ev idence of these f l u c t u a t i o n s a c r o s s c o h o r t s must suggest a weakness i n the theory as i t a p p l i e s in the Canadian c a s e . E x p e c t a t i o n s for the New Democrat ic Par ty are s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d g i v e n the h i s t o r y and e l e c t o r a l r e c o r d of 1 I 5 t h e p a r t y . Formed i n 1961 f r o m an a l l i a n c e o f t h e CCF and t r a d e u n i o n s , t h e NDP i s t h e n e w e s t of t h e t h r e e p a r t i e s e x a m i n e d h e r e . The p a r t y h a s m a i n t a i n e d a f a i r l y s t e a d y s h a r e o f t h e t o t a l e l i g i b l e e l e c t o r a t e s i n c e 1962. Thus on t h e f a c e of i t t h e r e i s l i t t l e r e a s o n t o e x p e c t c o h o r t v a r i a t i o n . However i f we i n c l u d e t h e CCF r e c o r d ( t h a t i s p r e - 1 9 6 2 ) , t h e n i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t s u p p o r t f o r t h e p a r t y has grown s i n c e 1935. C o n s e q u e n t l y , g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f i d e n t i f y i n g w i t h t h e NDP a r e e x p e c t e d . In-p a r t i c u l a r , y o u n g e r c o h o r t s s h o u l d be more l i k e l y t o i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e p a r t y t h a n o l d e r c o h o r t s . T h e s e a r e t h e e x p e c t i o n s b a s e d on t h e d i f f e r e n t a r g u m e n t s w h i c h may e x p l a i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e p a r t y t i e . W i t h t h e h y p o t h e s e s s t a t e d , we c a n t u r n now t o t h e a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s e s o f L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , and NDP p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h e x p l a n a t i o n s r e c e i v e s u p p o r t i n t h e d a t a . THE LIBERAL.. PARTY The r e s u l t s of t h e APC a n a l y s i s of L i b e r a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X I 1 1 . 6 E i g h t e q u a t i o n s were e s t i m a t e d u s i n g d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r a i n t s f o r c o h o r t and a g e . B e g i n w i t h t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e s o c i a l f a c t o r s . The c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s a r e n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l a c r o s s a l l e i g h t m o d e l s . 9 I t s h o u l d be remembered t h a t t h e 1 1 6 T a b l e XII I S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (1 ) (2) (3) (4) b t b t b t b t Per i od 1979 • - - - - - - -1 974 .03 1 .57 .01 .63 .02 1 .08 .02 1 .54 1 968 .05 1.31 .01 . 18 .03 .72 .03 1 .87 1 965 - . 0 5 -1 .18 - . 1 0 -2.01 - . 0 7 -1 .39 -- .07 -3.42 Cohort 1956-58 - - - . 3 0 -1 .32 - - - .08 -1 .95 1953-55 - - - . 2 6 -1 .21 - - - .06 -1 .57 1950-52 - - - . 2 9 -1 . 4 3 - . 02 - .55 • - .09 -2.41 1947-49 - - - . 24 -1 .20 .03 .76 --.04 -1 .14 1944-46 .06 1.71 - . 1 9 -1 .03 .07 1 .59 • -.01 - . 1 2 T 941-43 .03 .90 - . 2 0 -1.14 .05 1 .02 • - .02 - . 6 0 1938-40 . 1 1 2.38 - . 1 2 - . 7 2 . 1 3 2 .05 .06 1 .91 1935-37 .08 . 1 .50 - . 14 - . 8 7 . 1 1 1 .47 .03 1 .09 1932-34 . 07 1 . 22 - . 1 3 - . 8 9 . 1 1 1 .30 .03 1 .04 1929-31 .. 1 0 1 . 39 - . 1 0 - . 7 2 ' . 1 3 1 .44 .06 1 .71 1926-29 . 07 . 94 -.11 - . 8 8 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 .04 1 . 04 1923-25 . 09 1 .08 - . 0 8 - . 6 9 . 1 4 1 .23 .06 1 .60 1920-22 .09 .91 - . 0 8 - . 7 2 . 1 4 1 . 1 1 .06 1 .46 1917-19 .07 . 66 - . 09 - . 8 7 .12 .91 .04 1 .00 1914-16 . 05 .42 - . 1 0 -1 .08 .10 .73 .02 . 53 1911-13 . 06 .52 - . 0 7 - . 8 8 . 1 2 .81 .04 .92 1908-1 0 . 06 . 46 - . 0 7 - . 9 3 . 12 .76 .04 .86 1905-07 . 06 .44 - . 06 - . 8 5 . 1 3 .74 .04 .89 1902-04 .05 . 33 - . 06 -.91 . 1 2 .66 .04 .70 1899-1901 .01 .09 - . 0 8 -1 . 48 .09 .47 .00 .08 1896-98 - . 00 - .01 - . 0 9 -1 .75 .08 .38 • -.01 - . 1 6 1893-95 . 1 3 .75 - - .22 1 .00 . 1 3 2.16 1890-92 .01 .04 - - .10 .41 .00 .04 1887-89 - .02 -.11 - - .07 .29 - -- 1886 .03 . 1 4 — - .13 .49 -Aqe 1 8-20 - - - - - - - -21-23 .01 .37 .02 .37 - - - -24-26 .01 .31 - .01 -.11 - .01 '- .26 --.01 - . 4 2 27-29 - . 0 3 - . 6 9 - . 0 5 - . 8 5 - . 0 5 -1 .40 -- .05 -1 .67 30-32 - . 02 - . 4 0 - . 0 6 - . 8 9 - . 0 5 -1 .20 -- .05 - 1 . 5 9 33-35 - .01 - .21 - . 0 6 - . 7 7 - . 04 - .85 --.04 -1 .25 36-38 - . 0 5 - . 7 8 - . 1 0 -1 .28 - . 0 8 -1 .37 --.08 -2 . 25 39-41 - . 03 - . 4 7 - . 1 0 -1 .08 - . 0 7 - 1 .02 -- .07 - 1 . 7 6 42-44 - .04 - . 5 6 - . 1 2 - 1 . 1 9 - . 0 9 -1 .06 --.08 -1 .98 45-47 - .01 - . 1 3 - . 0 9 - . 8 9 - . 0 6 - .66 -- .05 -1 .26 48-50 - . 03 - . 2 9 - . 1 2 -1 . 04 - . 0 8 - .78 --.07 -1 .59 1 1 7 51-53 .01 . 1 2 - . 0 9 - .74 - . 0 5 - .41 - . 04 - .80 54-56 - . 0 3 - . 2 7 - . 14 -1 .06 - . 0 9 - .74 - . 0 8 -1 .62 57-59 - . 0 5 - . 4 2 - . 1 7 -1 .18 - .11 - .85 - . 1 0 -1 .94 60-62 - .01 - .07 - . 14 - .92 - . 0 8 - .54 - . 0 7 -1 .21 63-65 - . 0 0 - . 0 3 - . 1 5 - .90 - . 0 8 - .50 - . 0 6 -1 . 1 4 66-68 .04 .27 - .11 - .66 - . 04 - .24 - . 0 3 - .44 69-71 .04 .23 - . 12 - .63 - . 0 5 - .26 - . 0 3 - .50 72-74 .04 .25 - . 1 3 - .66 - . 04 - .24 - . 0 3 - .46 75-77 .05 .32 - . 1 5 - .73 - . 0 3 - .18 - . 0 2 - .33 78-80 .09 .50 - . 12 - .57 - . 0 0 - .01 .02 .26 81 + .02 . 1 1 -•21 — .97 - . 0 8 - .34 - . 0 5 - .85 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender .05 4 .92 .05 4 .93 .05 4 .92 .05 4 .91 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .04 1 .86 . .04 1 .93 .04 1 .88 .04 1 .86 Propr i e t o r s .04 • 1.84 .04 1 .89 .04 1 .84 .04 1 .82 C l e r i c a l .05 2.45 .05 2 . 50 .05 2 .45 .05 2 .43 S k i l l e d .04 1 .83 .04 1 .89 .04 1 .84 .04 1 .81 S e m i - S k i l l e d .04 1.71 .04 1 .72 .04 1 .71 .04 1 .68 U n s k i l i e d .02 .86 .02 .92 .02 .87 .02 .84 Farmers - . 0 5 -2 .04 - . 0 5 _ -1 .97 - . 0 5 -2 .02 - . 0 5 -2 .05 C l a s s Upper . 09 4 . 52 .09 4 . 50 .09 4 . 52 .09 4 .50 M i d d l e . 05 4.65 .05 4 .61 .05 4 .61 .05 4 .61 No C l a s s - . 02 - . 94 - . 02 - .94 - . 0 2 - .94 - . 02 - .95 Educat ion .00 1 .20 .00 1 .20 .00 1 .23 .00 1 . 22 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c .21 16.92 .21 1 6 .90 .21 1 6 .92 . 2 1 1 6 .91 Other . 1 7 5.74 . 17 5 .73 . 1 7 5 .75 . 1 7 5 .74 No r e l i g i o n . 03 1 .34 .03 1 .38 .03 1 .37 .03 1 .39 Region A t l a n t i c . 02 .85 .01 .83 .02 .86 .02 .85 Quebec - . 02 -1 .62 - . 02 -1 .62 - . 0 2 - 1 .63 - . 0 2 - 1 .62 West - . 10 -7 .83 - . 1 0 -7 .87 - . 1 0 -7 .82 - . 1 0 -7 .82 Constant .19 4.03 .48 2 .02 .21 5 .76 .28 6 .35 R 2 .07600 .07573 .07614 .07614 R 2 Change* Coeff . "F Coef f • F Coef f • F Coef f • F (X) .066 38.06 .066 38 .03 .066 38 .02 .066 37 .95 (Per iod) .005 16.69 .005 1 7 . 1 1 .005 1 6 .57 .005 !8 . 1 4 (Age) .002 .72 .002 .87 .002 .82 .002 .81 (Cohort) .003 1.31 .002 1 .18 .003 1 .29 .003 1 .34 T a b l e XII I ( cont inued) (5) (6) (7) (8) b. t b t b t b t >er i o d 1 979 - - - - - - - -1974 .04 1 .83 .03 1 . 1 8 .03 1 .70 .03 1 .70 1968 .06 1 .68 .03 .89 .04 2. 10 .04 2.21 1965 - . 0 4 .81 - . 0 7 - 1 . 4 2 - . 0 6 - 3 . 3 7 - . 0 6 -3 .34 Cohort 1956-58 - - - - - - - . 0 5 - . 9 8 1953-55 .02 .43 .03 .73 - - - . 0 2 - . 3 9 1950-52 - . 04 - . 8 7 - .01 - . 1 9 - . 0 3 - . 6 9 - . 0 6 -1 .16 1947-49 .01 .34 .04 .84 .02 .65 - .01 - . 2 0 1 944-46 .05 1 .03 .08 1.48 .06 1 .83 .03 .54 1941-43 .02 .47 .06 1 .04 .04 1 .25 .01 . 1 9 1 938-40 .08 1 . 55 .14 1 .96 . 1 2 3.06 .08 1 . 64 1935-37 .05 .86 . 12 1 .46 . 1 0 2. 34 .06 1.16 1932-34 . 05 .69 . 1 1 1.31 .09 2.24 .06 1 . 1 2 1929-31 .07 .86 . 1 4 1 .45 . 1 2 2.71 . 08 1 . 59 1926-29 .04 .46 . 12 1.13 . 1 0 2.16 .06 1.16 1923-25 .06 .60 . 1 4 1 .25 . 1 2 2.55 .08 1 . 57 1 920-22 . 05 .46 . 1 4 1.13 .. 1 2 2.41 .08 1 .49 1917-19 .03 .23 .12 .94 . 1 0 2.00 .06 - 1 . 1 6 1914-16 . 00 .00 . 1 1 .75 . 08' 1 . 59 .04 .80 1911-13 .01 . 1 0 . 1 2 ..8 3 . 1 0 1 .89 .06 1.12 1908-10 .01 .05 .1 2 .77 . 1 0 1.81 .06 1 .07 1905-07 .00 .03 . 1 3 .74 . 1 0 1 .80 .06 1.10 1902-04 - .01 - . 0 7 . 1 2 .66 . 1 0 1 .60 . 05 .93 1899-1901 - . 0 5 - . 3 0 .10 .49 .07 1 .21 . 03 .46 1896-98 - . 0 7 - . 3 9 .07 .37 . 05 .78 .01 . 1 0 1893-95 .06 .35 .21 1.01 . 1 8 2.91 . 1 4 2.30 1890-92 - . 0 7 - . 3 4 .08 .38 .06 .82 .01 . 1 7 1887-89 - . 1 0 - . 4 8 .06 .28 .03 .44 - -- 1886 - . 0 5 - . 2 4 .09 .43 .06 .99 - -18-20 - - .00 . .01 -.0'1 - . 1 7 - . 02 - . 5 3 21-23 - - .02 . 1 4 .01 .27. - . 0 0 - . 1 5 24-26 - .01 .05 - . 0 0 - . 2 9 - .02 - . 5 5 27-29 - - - . 0 3 - . 1 8 - . 04 -1 .47 - . 0 5 -1 .79 30-32 - . 0 2 - . 5 3 - . 0 3 - . 2 0 - . 04 -1 .47 - . 0 5 -1 .73 33-35 .00 .02 - . 0 2 - . 1 5 - . 0 3 - 1 .09 - .04 -1 .38 36-38 - . 0 3 - . 7 4 - . 0 6 - . 4 7 - . 0 7 -2 .34 - . 08 -2.51 39-41 - .01 - . 2 2 - . 0 5 - . 3 9 - . 0 6 -1 .78 - . 0 7 - 1 .97 42-44 - . 0 2 - . 3 0 - . 0 6 - . 5 4 - . 0 7 - 2 . 0 6 - . 08 -2 .24 45-47 .02 .23 - . 0 3 - . 3 2 - . 04 -1 .22 - . 0 5 - 1 .42 48-50 .00 .06 - .05 - . 5 3 - . 0 6 -1 .65 - . 0 7 -1 .83 51-53 .05 .53 - . 0 2 - . 1 9 - . 0 3 - . 6 8 - . 03 - .87 54-56 .01 .08 - . 0 6 - . 7 7 - . 0 7 -1 .73 - . 08 -1 .88 1 1 9 57-59 - .01 - . 0 8 - . 0 8 -1 . 1 6 - . 0 9 -2 .14 - . 1 0 -2 .28 60-62 .04 .32 - . 04 - .73 - . 0 5 -1 .25 - . 0 6 -1 .39 63-65 .04 .36 - . 04 - .83 - . 0 5 -1.19 - . 0 6 -1 .32 66-68 .09 .68 - .01 - . 13 - .01 - .31 - . 0 2 - .43 69-71 .09 .64 - .01 - .23 - . 02 - . 3 7 - . 0 2 - .48 72-74 . 10 .65 - - - . 02 - .31 - . 0 2 - .41 75-77 . 1 1 .72 - - - . 0 0 - .04 - .01 - . 1 7 78-80 . 1 5 .91 - - - - -81 + .09 .49 - - - - - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender ..05 4.95 .05 4 .91 .05 4.90 .05 4 .90 O c c u p a t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l .04 1 .86 .04 1 .86 .04 1 .84 .04 1 .84 Propr i e t o r s .04 1.81 .04 1 .81 .04 1 .79 .04 1 .79 C l e r i c a l .05 2.46 .05 2 . 43 . 05 2.42 .05 2 .41 S k i l l e d .04 1 .84 .04 1 .81 .04 1 .79 . 03 1 .78 Semi -Sk i l i e d .04 1 .69 .04 1 .67 .04 1 . 68 .04 1 .66 U n s k i l l e d .02 .86 .02 .83 .02 .83 .02 .82 Farmers - . 0 5 -2 .04 - . 0 5 -2 .07 - . 0 5 -2.0.7 - . 05 -2 .08 C l a s s Upper .09 4.51 .09 4 . 52 .09 4. 52 .09 4 .51 M i d d l e .05 4.60 .05 4 .61 .05 4.61 . 05 4 .61 No C l a s s -.02 - . 9 3 - . 0 2 - .93 - . 02 - .94 - . 0 2 - .94 Educat ion .00 1 .27 .00 1 . 22 .00 1 . 22 .00 1 .21 R e l i g i on C a t h o l i c . 2 1 16.92 .21 1 6 .92 .21 1 6. 92 .21 1 6 .92 Other . 1 7 5.74 . 1 7 5 .73 . 1 7 5.74 . 1 7 5 .72 No r e l i g i o n .03 1.36 .03 1 . 37 .03 1 . 36 . 03 1 .37 Reg i on A t l a n t i c .02 .85 .02 .84 .02 .84 .01 .83 Quebec -.02 -1 .62 - . 0 2 -1 . 63 - . 02 -1 .64 - . 02 -1 .63 West -.10 -7.81 - . 1 0 -7 .80 - . 1 0 -7.81 - . 1 0 -7 .81 Constant . 1 9 4.77 . 1 8 1 . 00 .21 5.14 .25 5 .65 R 2 .07593 .07607 .07603 .07609 R 2 Change* Coeff . F Coef f • F Coef f . F Coe f f . F (X) .066 : 37.99 .066 37 .96 .066 37.99 .066 37 .95 ( P e r i o d ) . 005 1 6. 47 .005 1 6 .53 .005 18.18 .005 1 7 .80 (Age) . 001 .77 .001 .85 .001 .80 .001 .81 (Cohort ) .003 1.16 .003 1 .23 .003 1.31 .003 1 .35 N=9677 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . (X) i s the net e f f e c t o f . t h e s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 121 c o e f f i c i e n t s represent the average e f f e c t s of these f a c t o r s over the four surveys and may c o n c e a l s i g n i f i c a n t y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n . Where t h i s o c c u r s , i t w i l l be n o t e d . 1 0 P r e v i o u s work has demonstrated that s o c i a l s t a t u s does not p l a y a major r o l e in s t r u c t u r i n g p a r t y support in C a n a d a . 1 1 S i m i l a r l y , on ly minor d i f f e r e n c e s in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y are present a c r o s s s o c i a l s t r a t a , r e g a r d l e s s of whether s u b j e c t i v e or o b j e c t i v e measures are used as i n d i c a t o r s . G iven the l a r g e number of cases i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , even smal l d i f f e r e n c e s are l i k e l y to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The absence of many s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s u n d e r l i n e s the weakness of s o c i a l s t a t u s as a determinant of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s tha t L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s are e q u a l l y l i k e l y to come from a l l l e v e l s of e d u c a t i o n . 1 2 The on ly d i s t i n c t i o n by o c c u p a t i o n f i n d s that farmers are s l i g h t l y l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y than those 'not in the w o r k f o r c e . ' A l l o ther o c c u p a t i o n s are e q u a l l y l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the p a r t y . Some s m a l l but s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s are e v i d e n t by s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l c l a s s . Compared to those who see themselves as working c l a s s , respondents who c l a i m to be middle or upper c l a s s are somewhat more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g these d i f f e r e n c e s , the g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n must be that L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s are very l i k e l y to be from any s o c i a l s t r a t a . 1 3 1 22 The s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e by gender i n d i c a t e s that women are s l i g h t l y more l i k e l y than men to be L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s . T h i s r e s u l t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th p r e v i o u s ana lyse s tha t have found women more l i k e l y to vote L i b e r a l than m e n . 1 " H i s t o r i c a l l y , p a r t y support has v a r i e d by r e g i o n . S i m i l a r l y , some r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y are ev ident in the a n a l y s i s . R e s i d e n t s of the West are l e s s l i k e l y to be L i b e r a l than people who l i v e in other p a r t s of Canada. Whi le no other d i f f e r e n c e s are presen t i n t h i s a n a l y s i s , the data in T a b l e XIII concea l n o t a b l e v a r i a t i o n in the magnitude of the d i f f e r e n c e s from year to year (See Appendix I I , Tab le X X X I X ) . An i n s p e c t i o n of the y e a r l y c o e f f i c i e n t s for r e g i o n i n d i c a t e s that compared to r e s i d e n t s of O n t a r i o , Westerners were l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i th the L i b e r a l p a r t y in 1965 than in 1968. S i n c e 1968, the f i g u r e s show a s teady d e c l i n e in the p r o p o r t i o n of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s i n the West r e l a t i v e to O n t a r i o . F u r t h e r m o r e , there i s ev idence of y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n in L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in Quebec. R e l a t i v e to r e s i d e n t s i n O n t a r i o , Quebeckers have become more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i t h tha t p a r t y . In 1965, the data show Quebeckers were a c t u a l l y l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i th the L i b e r a l s than r e s i d e n t s of O n t a r i o ( a l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l ) , but by 1979 that s i t u a t i o n was r e v e r s e d . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that whi l e p a r t y support does d i f f e r by r e g i o n , the r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s themselves 123 vary in magnitude a c c o r d i n g to the year of the survey . R e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in the l i k e l i h o o d of a L i b e r a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f l u c t u a t e over time s u g g e s t i n g some s h i f t i n g in the p a r t y l o y a l t i e s h e l d by the c i t i z e n s of those r e g i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l ev idence of movement i s found when we examine the e f f e c t s of r e l i g i o n on the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y . D i f f e r e n c e s in the p o l i t i c a l l o y a l t i e s of C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y formed the s i n g l e most important c leavage in Canadian p o l i t i c s and ev idence of t h i s c l eavage i s present in the a n a l y s i s . C a t h o l i c s and those of other n o n - P r o t e s t a n t f a i t h s are more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y than are Pro te s tant s , or those wi th no r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n . But the s i z e of the d i f f e r e n c e between C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s has decreased s y s t e m a t i c a l l y over t i m e . In f a c t , the gap between the. two was twice as l a r g e in 1965 than i n 1979 s u g g e s t i n g that the importance of the r e l i g i o u s c l e a v a g e may be d e c l i n i n g . Moreover , i t i n d i c a t e s the d i f f e r e n c e between C a t h o l i c s and-P r o t e s t a n t s in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y , has changed. Taken in c o n j u n c t i o n with the f i n d i n g s for r e g i o n , the ev idence i n d i c a t e s that n e i t h e r of. the major c l eavages i s s t a b l e over t i m e . As a b l o c k , the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s make an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a n a t i o n of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , • 1 24 t a c c o u n t i n g for 6.6% of the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n . Region and r e l i g i o n are the major s o c i a l f a c t o r s which s t r u c t u r e L i b e r a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s a l t h o u g h i t i s important to remember that the magnitude of the c l eavages wi th r e s p e c t to both f a c t o r s changes from one survey to the nex t . Apar t from r e g i o n and r e l i g i o n however, no o ther s o c i a l v a r i a b l e has an important e f f e c t on L i b e r a l p a r t y a t tachments , at l e a s t when observed from a n a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e . T u r n i n g to the demographic v a r i a b l e s , of the e i g h t e s t i m a t i o n s the r e s u l t s for models 2 and 5 d i f f e r most. F u r t h e r m o r e , they p r o v i d e a somewhat poorer f i t than any of the o t h e r e s t i m a t i o n s as can be seen from a comparison of the magnitude of the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d (R 2 ) a c r o s s the e s t i m a t i o n s . For these r e a s o n s , models 2 and 5 are r e j e c t e d . T h e r e f o r e , the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n i s based on the r e s u l t s from the remaining s i x e s t i m a t i o n s . The c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d made by age, p e r i o d , and cohort (the R 2 change ) , i s n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l a c r o s s a l l models . P e r i o d v a r i a t i o n accounts for .5 p e r c e n t , age .1 p e r c e n t , and c o h o r t .3 p e r c e n t . Of the three demographic terms, only p e r i o d makes a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . T h i s i s t rue for a l l mode l s . L o o k i n g at the r e s u l t s w i t h i n the p e r i o d d imens ion , there i s genera l agreement in the e s t imates a c r o s s the mode l s . R e l a t i v e to those in the 1979 survey , respondents 125 in the 1974 and 1968 surveys were more l i k e l y , and respondents from the 1965 survey were l e s s l i k e l y , to i d e n t i f y wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y . The v a r i a t i o n in models 4, 7, and 8 i s s i g n i f i c a n t . F u r t h e r , the p a t t e r n c o r r e s p o n d s to the e l e c t o r a l showing of the p a r t y over the same time p e r i o d . The v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n t h i s d imension i n d i c a t e s a degree of p a r t i s a n i n s t a b i l i t y , presumably as a response to the s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l s t i m u l i that accompanies e l e c t i o n campaigns . Note however, that the amount of i n d i v i d u a l movement tha t produced these s m a l l net s h i f t s in the p o r p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n c l a i m i n g a L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , cannot be determined from t h i s a n a l y s i s . With respec t to the c o h o r t r e s u l t s , a l l models show a d e c l i n e in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y as one moves from o l d to young c o h o r t s . (See F i g u r e I V - 1 ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the decrease i s e v i d e n t for those c o h o r t s born in 1938 and a f t e r . These c o h o r t s began to enter the e l e c t o r a t e in 1957. T h i s was a time when both the C o n s e r v a t i v e s and CCF-NDP were s t r o n g e r p e r f o r m e r s in the p o l i t i c a l arena than they had been for some t ime . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the d e c l i n e appears to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the b e t t e r performance of the o ther p a r t i e s . I t must be p o i n t e d out however, that s i g n i f i c a n t c o h o r t d i f f e r e n c e s are found i n models 4 and 8 o n l y . Moreover , the c o h o r t d imension i s not s i g n i f i c a n t in any of the 1 26 e s t i m a t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e the p a t t e r n a c r o s s the c o h o r t d imens ion c l e a r l y suggests a d e c l i n e in L i b e r a l s u p p o r t , the r e s u l t s are not s u f f i c i e n t l y s t r o n g to j u s t i f y a c o n c l u s i o n of g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y does not vary in any sys t emat i c way by age, as i s ev ident from an examinat ion of the r e s u l t s of the e s t i m a t i o n s . (See F i g u r e I V - 2 . ) In those i n s t a n c e s where a few c o e f f i c i e n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t , as in models 4, 7, and 8, the dimension i t s e l f i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . i n g e n e r a l , one ' s p o s i t i o n in the l i f e c y c l e has no b e a r i n g on the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the L i b e r a l p a r t y , a l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l . Taken together these r e s u l t s conform on ly p a r t i a l l y to e x p e c t a t i o n s based on the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The absence of g e n e r a t i o n a l e f f e c t s was expected g iven the c o n s i s t e n t r e c o r d of e l e c t o r a l support ach ieved by the L i b e r a l p a r t y in t h i s c e n t u r y . S i m i l a r l y , age was not expected to have much of an e f f e c t . But the f i n d i n g of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s runs c o n t r a r y to the theory and suggests that i t does not p r o v i d e a whol ly adequate account of L i b e r a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . Both the p e r i o d e f f e c t s and the y e a r l y v a r i a t i o n in the magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e s by r e g i o n and r e l i g i o n suggest s h o r t - t e r m movement. In s h o r t , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a degree of i n s t a b i l i t y in the p a r t y at tachments of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s . 1 27 T a b l e XIV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1 9 5 6 - 5 8 - . 0 5 -1 . 0 0 Gender . 0 5 4 . 9 3 1 9 5 3 - 5 5 - . 0 3 - . 6 5 O c c u p a t i o n : 1 9 5 0 - 5 2 - . 0 8 -1 . 6 7 P r o f e s s i o n a l . 0 4 1 . 6 2 1 9 4 7 - 4 9 - . 0 4 - . 7 9 P r o p r i e t o r . 0 3 1 . 57 1 9 4 4 - 4 6 . 0 0 . 0 5 C l e r i c a l . 0 4 2 . 2 5 1 9 4 1 - 4 3 - . 0 3 - . 5 7 S k i l l e d . 03 1 . 66 1 9 3 8 - 4 0 . 0 4 . 84 Semi-sk i l i e d . 0 3 1 . 4 5 1 9 3 5 - 3 7 - . 0 0 - . 0 1 U n s k i l l e d .01 . 65 1 9 3 2 - 3 4 . 0 0 . 10 Farmers - . 0 5 - 2 . 2 6 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 . 0 2 . 3 9 Educat ion . 00 1.31 1 9 2 6 - 2 8 . 0 0 . 1 1 C l a s s : 1 9 2 3 - 2 5 . 0 2 . 3 8 Upper . 0 9 4 . 4 8 1 9 2 0 - 2 2 . 0 2 . 3 6 Middle . . 0 5 •4 . 55 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 . 0 0 . 0 7 No C l a s s - . 0 2 - . 9 0 1 9 1 4 - 1 6 - ! o i - . 2 6 Reg ion: 1 9 1 1 - 1 3 .01 . 2 5 A t l a n t i c .01 . 8 2 1 9 0 8 - 1 0 - . 0 0 - . 0 4 Quebec - . 0 2 -1 . 6 0 1 9 0 5 - 0 7 . 0 2 . 3 8 West - . 1 0 - 7 . 9 0 1 9 0 2 - 0 4 . 0 2 . 38 R e i i g i o n : 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 0 1 . 0 0 . 0 9 C a t h o l i c .21 1 6 . 8 7 1 8 9 6 - 9 8 - . 0 1 - . 1 9 Other . 17 5 . 8 2 1 8 9 3 - 9 5 . 1 3 2 . 1 3 No r e l i g i o n . 0 3 1 . 3 0 1 8 9 0 - 9 2 . 0 0 . 0 6 1 8 8 7 - 8 9 Constant . 2 5 5 . 7 4 -1 886 — — — R 2 . 0 7 5 Per iod 1 979 R 2 Change C o e f f . F • 1 974 . 0 3 2 . 0 3 (X) . 066 3 7 . 9 7 1 968 . 0 4 2 . 7 4 ( P e r i o d ) . 0 0 5 1.8. 30 1965 - . 0 6 - 3 . 4 2 (Cohort ) . 0 0 3 1.31 1 28 As a check on these r e s u l t s , the e s t i m a t i o n was r e p l i c a t e d without the age d i m e n s i o n . The r e s u l t s are shown in T a b l e X I V . N o t i c e that the c o n t r i b u t i o n made to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e by each of the d imens ions i s the same as be fore (see the R 2 change) . P e r i o d v a r i a t i o n remains s i g n i f i c a n t whi l e cohor t c o n t r i b u t e s n o t h i n g . Moreover , the p a t t e r n of the y e a r l y c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h i n the p e r i o d d imens ion are i d e n t i c a l to those produced in the f u l l a n a l y s i s . These r e s u l t s serve to c o n f i r m the p r e v i o u s c o n c l u s i o n s . In terms of demographic f a c t o r s , the s t o r y of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i s one of p e r i o d e f f e c t s , i m p l y i n g that there i s some degree i n s t a b i l i t y in L i b e r a l par ty i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY The r e s u l t s of the APC a n a l y s i s for C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s appear in Tab le XV. B e g i n n i n g wi th the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , . i t i s e v i d e n t that C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s vary most by r e g i o n and r e l i g i o n . R e l a t i v e to O n t a r i o , the i n c i d e n c e of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y i s somewhat g r e a t e r in the M a r i t i m e s and the West and lower in Quebec in the four surveys combined. However, y e a r l y f l u c t u a t i o n s in the s i z e of the c o e f f i c i e n t s are a l s o p r e s e n t , i n d i c a t i n g change i n the r e l a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between the r e g i o n s over t ime . In p a r t i c u l a r , the i n c i d e n c e 1 29 T a b l e XV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC I d e n t i f i c a t i o n (1 ). (2) (3) (4) b t b t b t b t 'er i od 1979 - - - - - - - -1974 - . 0 5 - 2 . 6 9 - . 0 3 -1 .42 - .04 -1 .91 - . 0 5 -3 .63 1 968 - . 0 2 - . 8 3 .01 .30 - . 0 0 - . 1 4 - .04 -2 .50 1 965 .00 .09 .05 1.11 .03 .64 - .01 .85 Cohort 1956-58 - - . 35 1.81 - - .01 .32 1953-55 - - .32 1 .72 - - - .01 - .23 1950-52 - - .28 1 .58 - .04 - 1 . 38 - .04 -1 .09 1947-49 - - .29 1 .70 - . 0 3 - .97 - .02 - . 5 6 1944-46 .01 .31 .29 1 .83 - . 0 3 - .67 .01 1.10 1941-43 .01 .31 .28 1 .87 - . 03 - .64 .01 .25 1938-40 . 00 .06 .26 1 .84 - .04 - .82 - . 00 - . 02 1935-37 - .02 - . 4 7 .23 1 .72 - . 0 7 -1 . 17 - .02 - .74 1932-34 - . 0 0 - . 04 .24 1 .92 - . 0 6 - .82 .00 . 1 6 1929-31 - .04 - . 5 9 .20 1 .70 - . 1 0 - 1 .21 - .02 - . 84 1926-29 - .01 - . 14 .22 1 .98 - . 08 - .86 .01 . 17 1923-25 - . 0 8 -1 .06 . 1 4 1 .36 - . 1 5 -1 . 55 - . 0 6 -1 .86 1920-22 - . 0 5 - . 6 6 : i 6 1 .65 - . 13 -1 .23 - . 03 - . 9 3 1917-19 - . 0 3 - . 2 9 . 18 2.02 -.11 - .93 .00 .04 1914-16 - . 0 3 - . 3 3 . 1 6 2.03 - . 12 - .96 - . 00 - . 02 1911-13 - . 0 7 - . 6 9 . 1 1 1 .55 - . 1 6 -1 . 24 - .04 - .94 1908-10 - . 0 9 - . 8 0 .08 1 .32 - .19 -1 . 32 - . 0 5 -1 .23 1905-07 . - . 1 0 - . 7 9 .07 1 . 23 - . 2 0 -1 . 30 - . 0 5 -1.18 1902-04 - . 1 2 - . 94 .04 .68 - . 2 3 -1 .42 - . 0 7 -1 .59 1899-1901 -.11 - . 7 9 . 04 .85 - . 2 2 -1 .29 - .05 -1 .20 1896-98 - . 0 8 - . 5 8 . 05 1 .25 - . 2 0 -1 . 1 2 - .02 - .51 1893-95 - . 1 5 - . 9 6 - - - . 2 7 -1 .43 - . 08 -1 .64 1890-92 -.11 - .71 - - - .24 - 1 .21 - .04 - .81 1887-89 - . 0 7 - .41 - - - . 20 - .96 - -- 1886 -.11 - . 5 8 — - . 24 -1 . 1 0 - — Age 1 8-20 _ 21-23 - .01 - . 2 6 .01 .28 - - - -24-26 .00 . 1 3 .04 .98 .02 .93 .02 .76 27-29 .01 .36 .06 1 .30 .04 1 .43 .03 1.11 30-32 .02 .45 .07 1 .35 .05 1 .34 .03 .94 33-35 .03 .59 .09 1 .51 .06 1 .43 .03 1 .05 36-38 .02 .45 .10 '1 .43 .06 1 .23 .02 .73 39-41 .04 .66 .12 1.61 .08 1 .39 .03 1 .01 42-44 .08 1.19 . 17 2.04 .13 1 .84 .07 1 .91 45-47 .05 .75 .15 1 .70 . 1 1 1 .40 .04 1 .07 48-50 .04 . 56 . 15 1 .55 .10 1 .20 . 03 .67 1 30 51-53 .04 .47 . 1 6 1 .49 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 .02 .46 54-56 .08 .89 .21 1 .82 .15 1 .46 .06 1 .30 57-59 . 12 1.19 .25 2 .07 .19 1 .71 .09 1 .94 60-62 . 1 1 1 .03 .25 1 .94 .19 1 .56 .08 1 .60 63-65 . 1 1 1 .00 .27 1 .92 .20 1 .52 .08 1 .53 66-68 . 10 .86 .27 1 .80 .20 1 .39 .06 1 .19 69-71 . 13 .98 .29 1 .87 .22 1 .48 .08 1 .48 72-74 . 19 1 .40 .37 2 .22 .29 1 .84 . 1 4 2 .52 75-77 .21 1 .45 .40 2 .34 .31 1 .87 .15 2 .82 78-80 • . 19 1 .22 .39 2 .19 .30 1 .67 . 1 2 2 .30 81 + .22 1.29 .43 2 .32 .34 1 .72 . 1 3 2 .92 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender - . 00 - . 38 - . 0 0 - .35 - . 0 0 - .34 - . 0 0 - . 33 Occupat i on P r o f e s s i o n a l - .03 -1 .66 - . 0 3 - 1 .65 - . 03 -1 .63 - . 0 3 - 1 .61 P r o p r i e t o r s . 00 .24 .00 .22 .00 .25 .00 .28 C l e r i c a l . - .01 - . 64 - .01 - .65 - .01 - .64 - .01 - .60 S k i l l e d - . 0 5 -2 .94 - . 0 5 -2 .95 - . 0 5 -2 .93 - . 05 -2 .89 S e m i - S k i l l e d - .04 -1 .85 - .04 - 1 .84 - .04 -1 .85 - . 04 - 1 .82 U n s k i l l e d - .04 -2 .36 - . 04 -2 .38 - .04 -2 . 36 - .04 -2 .32 Farmers . 09 4.59 .09 4 .59 .09 4 .59 .0.9 4 .64 C l a s s Upper . 02 1.15 .02 1 .18 . 02 1 . 1 6 .02 1 . 1 7 M i d d l e . 03 3.12 .03 3 . 1 1 .03 3 . 1 1 ' .03 3 . 1 0 No C l a s s - .01 - . 4 2 - .01 - .41 - .01 - .42 - .01 - .42 Educat i on - .00 -1 .68 - . 0 0 - 1 .68 - . 0 0 - 1 . 68 - . 0 0 - 1 . 68 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 1 9 • -18 .05 - . 19 - 1 8 .05 - . 19 - 18 .07 - . 19 - 18 .05 Other - . 1 7 -6 .46 - . 1 7 -6 .47 - . 1 7 -6 .47 - . 1 7 -6 .45 No r e l i g i o n - . 22 • -11.03 - . 22 - 1 1 . 05 - .22 - 1 1 .03 - . 2 2 - 1 1 .05 Region A t l a n t i c .07 4 . 55 .07 4 . 58 .07 4 . 55 .07 4 . 55 Quebec - . 0 7 -5 .60 - . 0 7 -5 . 58 - . 0 7 -5 . 57 - . 0 7 - 5 . 56 West . 02 2 . 04 .02 2 .06 .02 2 .04 .02 2 .03 Constant . 38 9.22 .03 .16 .38 12 . 14 .39 1 0 . 1 2 R 2 .10331 . 10346 .10350 .10340 R 2 Change* Coef f . F Coef f • F Coef f • F Coef f F (X) .089 ! 53. 01 .089 53 .04 .089 53 .00 .089 52 .96 ( P e r i o d ) .002 6.33 .002 5 .94 .002 6 .20 .002 5 .83 (Age) .001 .75 .002 .99 .002 .85 .002 1 .24 (Cohort ) .002 .93 .002 1 .01 .002 .93 .002 .93 131 Tab le XV (cont inued) (5) b . t b P e r i o d 1979 - - -1974 - . 0 5 -2 .82 - . 04 1968 - . 0 3 -1 .05 - .01 1965 - . 0 0 - . 1 3 .02 Cohort 1956-58 - - -1953-55 - .01 - . 3 6 - . 0 3 1950-52 - . 0 3 - . 8 9 - . 0 6 1947-49 - .01 - . 3 9 - . 0 5 1 944-46 - . 0 0 - . 0 3 - . 04 1941-43 .00 .10 - . 0 5 1 938-40 .00 .02 - . 0 6 1 935-37 - . 0 2 - . 42 - . 0 9 1 932-34 - . 0 0 - . 04 - . 0 7 1929-31 - . 0 3 - . 5 0 - .11 1 926-29 - .01 - . 0 8 - . 0 9 1 923-25 - . 0 7 - .91 - . 1 6 1 920-22 - . 0 5 - . 5 3 - . 14 1917-19 - . 0 2 - . 1 8 - . 12 1914-16 - . 0 2 - .21 - . 1 3 1911-13 - . 0 6 - . 5 5 - . 1 7 1908-10 - . 0 8 - . 6 5 - . 1 9 1 905-07 - . 0 8 - . 64 - .21 1~ 9 0 2 - 0 4 - . 10 - . 7 7 - . 2 3 1899-1901 - . 0 9 - . 6 3 - . 2 2 1896-98 - . 0 6 - . 42 - . 2 0 1893-95 - . 12 - . 7 9 - . 2 7 1890-92 - . 0 9 - . 54 - . 2 3 1887-89 - .04 - . 2 5 - . 1 9 - 1886 - . 0 8 - . 42 - . 22 Aqe 18-20 - - - . 3 0 21-23 - - - . 2 9 24-26 - - - . 2 7 27-29 - - - . 2 5 30-32 .01. .46 - . 24 33-35 .02 .61 - . 2 3 36-38 .01 .33 - . 2 3 39-41 .02 .57 - .21 42-44 .06 1.21 - . 1 7 45-47 .04 .62 - . 1 9 48-50 .02 .38 - . 1 9 51-53 .02 .27 - . 1 9 54-56 .06 .74 - . 14 (6) (7) (8) t b t b t -1 .88 - . 0 6 -4 .22 - . 0 6 - 4 . 2 7 - . 2 2 - . 0 6 -4 .03 - . 0 6 -4 .23 .62 - . 04 -2 .49 - . 04 - 2 . 6 7 _ _ _ - . 1 3 - 2 . 8 8 - . 7 4 - - - . 14 -3 .04 -1 .52 - . 0 3 - .87 - . 1 6 -3 .61 - 1 . 1 7 - . 0 0 - .11 - .14 -3 .10 - . 8 9 .02 .68 - . 12 - 2 . 7 9 - . 8 5 .03 .98 - . 1 0 - 2 . 4 9 - . 9 9 .03 .87 - .11 -2 .44 -1 .29 .02 .45 - . 12 -2 .72 - . 9 6 .05 1 .26 - . 0 9 -2 .02 -1 .32 .02 .59 - .11 -2 .52 - . 9 8 .06 1 .47 - . 0 7 -1 .69 -1 .65 - . 0 0 - .06 - . 13 -2 .98 -1 .34 .03 .03 - . 1 0 - 2 . 1 9 -1 .03 .07 1 .61 - . 0 6 -1 .32 -1 .05 .07 1 .64 - . 0 6 -1 .21 -1 .33 .04 .95 - . 0 9 -1 .83 -1 .42 .04 .75 - . 0 9 -1 .96 -1 .40 .04 .82 - . 0 9 - 1 . 7 9 -1 . 50 .03 .51 - . 10 -2 .06 -1 .40 .05 1 .04 - . 08 -1 .64 - 1 . 1 9 .08 1 .59 - .04 - . 8 3 -1 .52 .03 .59 - . 0 9 -1 .80 -1 .28 .08 1 .32 - . 0 5 - . 9 0 -1 .02 . 1 3 2 .29 - --1 .18 . 1 2 2 . 1 8 - 1 . 8 5 - .01 .23 .00 . 1 2 -1 .94 - .01 - .50 - .01 -1 .70 -1 .86 - . 0 2 - 1 .58 .01 .40 -1 .82 .00 .20 .01 .58 -1 .89 - . 0 0 . -. 1 4 .01 .23 -1.91 - . 0 0 - . 1 9 .00 . 1 5 -2 .04 - . 0 2 - .72 - .01 - . 3 7 - 2 . 0 0 - .01 - .46 - .00 - . 1 7 -1 .72 .02 .53 .02 .75 - 2 . 1 0 - . 0 2 - .61 -.01 - . 3 7 - 2 . 3 6 - . 04 -1 .22 - .03 - . 9 7 - 2 . 5 7 - . 0 5 -1 .55 - .04 -1 .33 - 2 . 1 6 - . 02 - .56 -.01 - . 3 9 1 32 57-59 .09 1 .07 - . 1 0 -1 .72 .01 .22 .01 .35 60-62 .08 .88 - .11 -2 .07 - .01 - .31 - .01 - . 1 9 63-65 .09 .83 - . 1 0 -2 .16 - . 0 2 - .47 - .01 - .36 66-68 .08 .68 - . 1 0 -2 .53 - . 04 - .96 - . 0 3 - .86 69-71 .10 .81 - . 08 -2 . 10 - . 0 3 - .63 - . 0 2 - .56 72-74 " . 16 1 .25 - - .03 .70 .03 .76 75-77 .18 1 .30 - - .04 .83 .04 .92 78-80 .15 1 .05 - - - - - -81 + .18 1.12 - - - - - -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender - . 00 .36 - . 0 0 - .33 - . 0 0 - .36 - . 0 0 - .36 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l - . 0 3 -1 .59 - . 03 -1 .62 - . 0 3 -1 .65 - . 0 3 -1 .64 P r o p r i e t o r s .01 .29 .00 .26 .00 .23 .00 .24 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 64 - .01 - .62 - .01 - .66 - .01 - .66 S k i l l e d - . 0 5 -2.91 - . 0 5 -2 .91 - . 0 5 -2 .96 - . 0 5 -2 .95 S e m i - S k i l l e d - .04 -1.81 - .04 - 1 .83 - . 04 - 1 .89 - . 0 4 - 1 .88 U n s k i l l e d - .04 -2 .34 - .04 -2 .34 - . 04 -2 . 38 - . 0 4 -2 .37 Farmers .09 4.63 .09 4 .63 .09 4 .59 .09 4 .60 C l a s s Upper .02 1.15 .02 1 .18 .02 1 . 18 .02 1 . 1 8 M i d d l e . 03 3.11 .03 3 .11. .03 3 . 1 0 .03 3 . 1 0 No C l a s s - .01 - . 4 3 - .01 .41 - .01 - .40 - .01 - .40 E d u c a t i o n - . 0 0 -1 .73 - . 00 -1 . 68 - .00 - 1 .73 - . 0 0 1 .73 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 1 9 ' -18 .05 - . 19 - 1 8 .07 - . 19 - 1 8 . 08 - . 19 - 18 .08 Other - . 1 7 -6 .46 - . 1 7 -6 . 46 - . 1 7 -6 . 45 - . 1 7 -6 .45 No r e l i g i o n - .22 • -11.03 - . 22 - 1 1 .04 - .22 - 1 1 .04 - . 2 2 - 1 1 .04 Region . A t l a n t i c .07 4.56 .07 4 . 56 .07 4 . 54 .07 4 .54 Quebec - . 0 7 -5 .60 - . 0 7 -5 . 57 - . 0 7 -5 . 59 - . 0 7 -5 .60 West .02 2.03 .02 2 .02 .02 2 .02 .02 2 .02 Constant .40 11.45 .69 4 . 53 .40 1 1 .72 .53 1 3 .75 R 2 .10331 . 1.0350 . 1 0323 . 10323 R 2 Change* Coeff . F Coeff • F Coef f • F Coe f f • F (X) .089 ! 53.01 .089 53 .01 .089 53 .05 .089 53 .05 ( P e r i o d ) .002 6.25 .002 5 .61 .002 7 .48 .002 7 .82 (Age) .001 .83 .002 .94 .001 .75 .001 .75 (Cohort ) .002 .86 .002 .92 . 003 1 .19 .003 1 .32 N=9677 * R 2 change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n of each f a c t o r to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 133 of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has d e c r e a s e d ' in Quebec r e l a t i v e to O n t a r i o over the four teen year span c o v e r e d by the s u r v e y s . At the same t i m e , there has been an i n c r e a s e in C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s i n the West r e l a t i v e to O n t a r i o . (See Appendix I I , T a b l e XL for the y e a r l y c o e f f i c i e n t s ) . Both p a t t e r n s fo l l ow the t r e n d i n the p a r t y ' s e l e c t o r a l support in the r e s p e c t i v e a r e a s . R e l i g i o n a l s o s tands out as an important f a c t o r in s t r u c t u r i n g C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . Compared to P r o t e s t a n t s , members of every other r e l i g i o u s group are l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y . T h i s i n c l u d e s those wi th no r e l i g i o n as w e l l as C a t h o l i c s and those of o ther n o n - P r o t e s t a n t f a i t h s . I t i s noteworthy that the d i f f e r e n c e in C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s has d e c l i n e d somewhat from 1.965 to 1979. (See Appendix I I , T a b l e X L ) . T h i s c o r r e s p o n d s wi th the r e s u l t s of the L i b e r a l a n a l y s i s where a s i m i l a r d e c l i n e in r e l i g i o u s d i f f e r e n c e was e v i d e n t . N o n e t h e l e s s , the tendency of P r o t e s t a n t s to i d e n t i f y wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y remains i m p o r t a n t . There are few n o t a b l e r e s u l t s for the remain ing s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . Gender and e d u c a t i o n have no e f f e c t on the l i k e l i h o o d of a C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . For the most p a r t , o c c u p a t i o n i s not a good p r e d i c t o r of C o n s e r v a t i v e s u p p o r t . The e x c e p t i o n s are for s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d workers - both groups are s l i g h t l y l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y 1 34 with the T o r i e s - and , f or f a r m e r s , who as a group are somewhat more l i k e l y to see themselves as C o n s e r v a t i v e s compared to those 'not in the w o r k f o r c e ' . S i m i l a r l y , s u b j e c t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th a s o c i a l c l a s s makes l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e . A l t h o u g h those who see themselves as middle c l a s s are m a r g i n a l l y more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y than the working c l a s s , the d i f f e r e n c e i s s m a l l . T u r n i n g to the. demographic v a r i a b l e s , t h e i r r e l a t i v e e f f e c t on the e s t i m a t i o n i s e v i d e n t from an examinat ion of the c o e f f i c i e n t of d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Whi le age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t have an equa l e f f e c t i n terms of the magnitude of the c o e f f i c i e n t , on ly the p e r i o d d imens ion c o n t r i b u t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the o v e r a l l v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d . T h i s i s t rue for a l l models . D e c i d i n g on -which model to use as the b a s i s for the d e s c r i p t i o n of the e f f e c t s of the demographic v a r i a b l e s i s d i f f i c u l t in t h i s i n s t a n c e because there i s no s i n g l e p a t t e r n which dominates a c r o s s a l l e i g h t models . Three of the models can be e l i m i n a t e d based on a comparison of the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s wi th the raw s c o r e s . For example, we know from T a b l e XI tha t the percentage c l a i m i n g a C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was lower in 1965 than in 1979. The e s t i m a t e d va lues of the p e r i o d c o e f f i c i e n t s for Models 2, 3 and 6 show j u s t the o p p o s i t e , t h a t 1965 l e v e l s were g r e a t e r than in 1979. F u r t h e r none of the c o e f f i c i e n t s i s 1 35 s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e s e t h r e e m o d e l s do n o t a p p e a r t o p r o v i d e as good a f i t a s do t h e o t h e r m o d e l s . However, of t h e f i v e r e m a i n i n g m o d e l s , two d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s a r e p r e s e n t a c r o s s t h e age a n d c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n s . B e c a u s e t h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e c r i t e r i o n f o r c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n t h e two, t h e r e s u l t s f r o m b o t h a r e b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d . ( F i g u r e s IV-3 and IV-4 c o n t a i n a g r a p h o f t h e e s t i m a t e s f o r age and c o h o r t . ) M o d e l s 1, 4 and 5 show t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s i n c r e a s i n g w i t h a g e . Of t h e t h r e e m o d e l s , o n l y m odel 4 p r o d u c e s r e s u l t s w h i c h I n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s d i m e n s i o n . The p a t t e r n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a g i n g h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h p r e d i c t s an i n c r e a s e i n C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as one g e t s o l d e r . The c o r r e s p o n d i n g p a t t e r n f o r t h e s e m o d e l s on t h e c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t o l d e r c o h o r t s a r e somewhat l e s s l i k e l y t o i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e C o n s e r v a t i v e s t h a n a r e y o u n g e r c o h o r t s . The d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t l a r g e n o r a r e t h e y s i g n i f i c a n t i n any of t h e m o d e l s . I n sum, t h e s e r e s u l t s r u n c o n t r a r y t o e x p e c t a t i o n s b a s e d on t h e t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b u t o f f e r s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a g i n g i n c r e a s e s t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . N o t e h o w e v e r , t h a t n e i t h e r t h e age o r c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n s i s s i g n i f i c a n t . M o d e l s 7 and 8 p a i n t a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e o f age and c o h o r t e f f e c t s on C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . On t h e age d i m e n s i o n , b o t h m o d e l s show C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s t o 137 be d i s t r i b u t e d evenly a c r o s s a l l age groups , and t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d e no support for the c o n s e r v a t i v e - a g e h y p o t h e s i s . On the c o h o r t d i m e n s i o n , models 7 and 8 i n d i c a t e a g r e a t e r i n c i d e n c e of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n for members of the two o l d e s t c o h o r t s compared to the o thers and the d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t in both models . T h i s r e s u l t i s p a r t i a l l y c o n s i s t e n t wi th e x p e c t a t i o n s based on the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The h igher r a t e s of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among the o l d e s t c o h o r t s might be the remains of the h i s t o r i c a l s t r e n g t h of the p a r t y be fore 1935. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of the d e c l i n e of the p a r t y a f t e r 1935 or i t s modest i n c r e a s e in popular e l e c t o r a l support a f t e r 1957. E v i d e n c e of both had been expected to be r e f l e c t e d in the p a t t e r n a c r o s s c o h o r t s ; t h e i r absence i s t h e r e f o r e n o t a b l e . Taken t o g e t h e r , the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s are ambiguous. They do not support e i t h e r an age or c o h o r t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y l o y a l t i e s . The f a c t that n e i t h e r dimension c o n t r i b u t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the t o t a l v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d u n d e r l i n e s t h i s p o i n t . What i s most important here i s the absence of s t r o n g cohort e f f e c t s . The theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n taken i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi th the h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d of the p a r t y at the p o l l s , p r o v i d e s reason to expect g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y . The f a i l u r e to f i n d s u p p o r t i n g ev idence i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the inadequacy of the theory in t h i s i n s t a n c e . E q u a l l y , the r e s u l t s 138 p r o v i d e no support for an a g e - r e l a t e d e x p l a n a t i o n of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The bulk of the ev idence suggests l i t t l e credence should be p l a c e d on the n o t i o n tha t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y i n c r e a s e s w i th age. Of the three demographic v a r i a b l e s , p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t l y the dominant f a c t o r a c r o s s a l l models . The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the dimension i n d i c a t e movement in c o n j u n c t i o n with the e l e c t o r a l performance of the p a r t y . In p a r t i c u l a r , the p a r t y ' s v i c t o r y in the 1979 e l e c t i o n was accompanied by a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e over p r e v i o u s years in the p r o p o r t i o n of c i t i z e n s c l a i m i n g an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the p a r t y . T h i s r e s u l t coup led with the absence of c l e a r c o h o r t and age e f f e c t s suggests tha t C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are best e x p l a i n e d by the s h o r t - t e r m a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the p a r t y . The p r e c e d i n g r e s u l t s are conf i rmed in the a n a l y s i s shown in T a b l e X V I . The age d imens ion was omi t t ed from the e s t i m a t i o n thereby a l l o w i n g c o h o r t to c a p t u r e as much of the v a r i a t i o n as p o s s i b l e . The r e s u l t s remain unchanged. The cohort d imens ion s t i l l f a i l s to make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d by the e s t i m a t i o n and the p a t t e r n w i t h i n the d imens ion remains as be fore wi th o n l y the two o l d e s t c o h o r t s d i f f e r i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the o t h e r s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s a n a l y s i s l ends f u r t h e r support to p r e v i o u s c o n c l u s i o n . S h o r t - t e r m movement in C o n s e r v a t i v e 139 T a b l e XVI S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1 956-58 - . 1 3 - 3 . 0 7 . Gender - . 00 - . 3 8 1953-55 - . 14 -3.41 Occupat i o n : 1950-52 - . 1 6 - 3 . 7 6 P r o f e s s i o n a l - . 0 3 -1 .64 1947-49 - . 14 • -3 .34 P r o p r i e t o r .00 .22 1944-46 - .11 -2 .96 C l e r i c a l - .01 .65 1941-43 - .11 -2 .76 S k i l l e d - . 0 5 -2.91 1938-40 - . 1 0 -2 .73 S e m i - s k i l l e d - .04 . -1 .86 1935-37 - . 1 2 -3 .03 U n s k i l l e d - .04 - 2 . 34 1 932-34 - . 0 9 -2 .47 Farmers .09 4.67 1 929-31 - . 1 2 -3 .27 E d u c a t i o n - .002 -1 .79 1 926-28 - . 1 0 -2 .57 C l a s s : 1 923-25 - . 1 4 -3 .82 Upper .02 1 .22 1 920-22 -.'11 -2 .97 M i d d l e . .03 3.20 1917-19 - . 0 8 -2 .20 No C l a s s - .01 - . 4 0 1914-16 - . 0 8 -2 .20 R e g i o n : 1911-13 - .11 -2 .87 A t l a n t ic .07 4 .49 1908-10 - .11 -2.71 Quebec - . 0 7 -5.61 1 905-07 - . 1 0 - 2 . 3 9 West .02 2.03 1902-04 - .11 - 2 . 5 9 R e l i g i o n : 1899-1901 - . 0 9 -2 .15 C a t h o l i c - . 1 9 -18.08 1896-98 - . 0 6 -1 .27 Other - . 1 7 6.54 1893-95 - . 0 9 -1 .98 No r e l i g i o n - . 2 2 -11 .06 1890-92 - . 0 3 - . 6 2 1887-89 Constant .53 14.37 -1 886 R 2 . 1 02 Per i od 1 979 R 2 Change C o e f f . F 1974 - . 0 6 -4 .42 (X) .089 53.03 1968 - . 0 6 -4 .42 (Per iod) .002 8.45 1 965 - . 04 -2 .74 (Cohort) .003 1 .39 1 40 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i s t h e m a j o r f e a t u r e r e v e a l e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s . T h e s e r e s u l t s mark a s i g n i f i c a n t f a i l u r e o f t h e t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e C a n a d i a n c a s e . THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY The r e s u l t s o f t h e NDP a n a l y s i s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e X V I I . B e g i n w i t h t h e s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . A number of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s have an e f f e c t on t h e l i k e l i h o o d of an NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . M o s t n o t a b l e a r e r e s u l t s w h i c h i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e a l l i a n c e b e t ween o r g a n i z e d l a b o u r and t h e NDP has p r o d u c e d some r e w a r d . F o r e x a m p l e , on t h e o c c u p a t i o n v a r i a b l e s b o t h s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d w o r k e r s a r e somewhat more l i k e l y t o i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e NDP t h a n a r e ' t h o s e n o t i n t h e w o r k f o r c e ' . S i m i l a r l y , t h o s e who s e e t h e m s e l v e s a s w o r k i n g c l a s s a r e more l i k e l y t o i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e NDP t h a n a r e t h o s e who c l a i m a p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t a c h m e n t w i t h o t h e r s o c i a l c l a s s e s . A l t h o u g h s m a l l i n m a g n i t u d e , t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t and a r e a s e x p e c t e d g i v e n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e NDP and l a b o u r . The l i k e l i h o o d o f i d e n t i f y i n g w i t h t h e NDP i n c r e a s e s somewhat w i t h e d u c a t i o n . An NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s more common among men t h a n women. W i t h r e s p e c t t o r e g i o n , r e s i d e n t s o f Quebec and t h e A t l a n t i c p r o v i n c e s a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o i d e n t i f y w i t h t h e NDP t h a n a r e p e o p l e who l i v e i n O n t a r i o o r t h e West. T h i s i s a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e 141 Tab le XVII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n • (1) (2) (3) (4) b t b t b t b P e r i o d 1 979 - - -1 974 - .04 -3 .12 - . 04 1968 - .04 -1 .93 - . 04 1965 - .04 -1 .40 - . 04 Cohort 1956-58 - - .00 1953-55 - - .00 1950-52 - - - . 0 0 1947-49 • - - • .01 1944-46 - .02 -1 .02 - . 02 1941-43 - . 0 5 -1 .93 - . 04 1938-40 - . 0 7 -2 .52 - . 0 7 1935-37 - . 0 5 -1 .48 - . 0 5 1932-34 - . 0 7 -1 .84 - . 0 7 1929-31 - . 0 6 -1 .30 - . 0 5 1926-29 - .04 - . 9 2 - . 04 1923-25 - . 0 3 - . 5 0 - . 0 3 1920-22 - .04 - . 7 5 - .04 1917-19 - . 0 3 - . 4 4 - . 0 3 1914-16 - .04 - . 6 3 - . 04 1911-13 - . 0 3 - . 3 7 - . 0 3 1908-10 - . 0 0 - .01 - . 0 0 1905-07 - . 0 3 - . 3 8 - . 0 3 1902-04 .01 .10 .01 1899-1901 .02 .20 .02 1896-98 .04 .37 .04 1893-95 - .01 - . 0 8 -1890-92 - . 02 - . 1 5 -1887-89 .08 .62 -- 1886 .01 .06 -Age 18-20 - - • -21-23 .02 .68 .02 24-26 .01 .36 .01 27-29 .03 .97 .03 30-32 .02 .59 .01 33-35 .02 .49 .02 36-38 .03 .86 .03 39-41 .03 .66 .03 42-44 .00 .10 .00 45-47 .01 .22 .01 48-50 .02 .37 .02 51-53 - .01 - . 1 0 - .01 .77 - . 0 5 -3 .30 - .04 -3 .75 .63 - . 0 5 -2 .04 - . 03 -2 .95 . 17 - . 0 5 -1 .58 - . 03 -2 .13 .03 _ _ .03 .98 .01 - - .02 .77 .01 .00 . 1 4 .02 .82 .08 .02 .70 .03 1 .30 . 1 5 - .01 - .22 - .01 -1 .14 .38 - . 03 - .86 - . 03 -1 .59 .64 - . 0 5 -1 .28 - . 0 6 -3 .04 .46 - . 03 - .56 - .04 -1 .91 .73 - . 0 5 - .87 - . 0 6 -3 .15 .63 - . 03 - .50 - . 0 5 -2 .46 .54 - .02 - .24 - .04 -1 .94 . 34 . .01 . 08 - . 03 -1 .19 .64 - .01 - . 1'2 - . 0 5 -1 .99 .44 .01 . 1 1 - .04 -1 .37 .77 - . 0 0 - .05 - . 0 5 -2 .00 .54 .01 . 1 5 - . 04 -1 .45 .01 .04 .43 - .02 - . 5 5 .78 .01 . 1 3 - . 0 5 -1 .65 .19 .06 .52 - .01 - . 44 .48 .07 .59 - .01 - .21 .18 .10 .73 .01 .31 - .05 .36 - . 04 -1 .08 - .04 .29 - . 0 5 -1.31 - . 14 .92 - -.07. .45 .56 - - - - . .24 - .01 - .55 - . 00 - . 1 6 .72 .01 .25 .02 .87 .37 - .01 - .33 .01 .37 .36 - .01 - .33 .01 .52 .65 .00 .07 .03 1 .34 .50 - . 0 0 - . 1 1 .03 1.15 .08 - . 03 - .60 .01 .32 .17 - . 03 - .47 .02 .65 .30 - .02 - .31 .03 1 .06 .07 - . 0 5 - .-71 .01 .20 1 42 54-56 - .01 - . 2 2 - .01 - . 16 - . 06 .79 .00 .01 57-59 - .01 - .11 - .01 - .07 - . 06 - .68 .01 .31 60-62 - . 0 2 - .31 - . 0 2 - .23 - .08 - .83 - . 0 0 - .06 63-65 - . 0 2 - . 2 5 - . 0 2 - .18 - . 0 7 - .77 .00 .12 66-68 - . 0 6 - . 6 2 - . 0 5 - .48 - .11 -1 .08 - . 0 3 - .72 69-71 - . 0 4 - .41 - . 04 - .33 - . 10 - .89 - .01 0 .20 72-74 - . 0 8 - .81 - . 0 8 - .68 - . 14 -1 .22 - . 0 5 -1 .15 75-77 - . 0 8 - . 7 6 - . 0 7 - .56 - .14 -1 . 1 6 - . 04 - .93 78-80 - . 1 0 - . 8 9 - . 0 8 - .63 - . 16 -1 .27 - . 0 6 -1 .43 81 + - . 1 0 - . 8 0 - . 0 8 — .61 - . 1 7 -1 .18 - . 0 6 -1 .85 S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender - . 0 2 - 3 . 54 - . 0 2 -3 .55 - .02 -3 .54 - . 0 2 -3 .51 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 . 36 .00 .35 .01 .37 .01 .39 P r o p r i e t o r s - . 0 2 -1 .18 - . 02 -1 .22 - .02 -1 . 18 - .01 - 1 . 1 6 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 7 2 - .01 - .74 -.01 - .72 - .01 - .69 S k i l l e d .04 3. 50 .04 3 .47 .04 3 .51 .04 3 .54 S e m i - S k i l l e d . 03 1 .89 .03 1 .89 .03 1 .89 . 03 1 .94 U n s k i l l e d .04 2.62 .03 2 .61 .04 2 . 63 .04 2 . 66 Farmers - . 0 2 -1 .61 - . 0 2 - i .62 - .02 -1 .60 - . 0 2 - 1 . 58 C l a s s Upper - . 0 6 -4 .34 - . 0 5 -4 .32 - . 0 6 -4 .36 - . 06 -4 .34 M i d d l e - . 0 4 . -5 .74 - . 04 -5 .74 - .04 -5 .76 - . 04 -5 .75 No C l a s s - . 0 6 - 4 . 6 7 - . 0 6 -4 .65 - . 06 -4 . 68 - . 06 -4 . 66 Educat i on . .002 2.24 .002 2 .26 .002 2 .26 .002 2 . 27 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 0 0 - . 3 9 - . 0 0 - .35 - .00 - . 38 - . 0 0 - .36 Other - .01 - . 4 3 - .01 - .43 - .01 - . 42 - .01 - . 4 1 No r e l i g i o n .08 5.15 .08 5 . 1 5 .08 5 . 18 .08 5 . 1 6 Reg i on A t l a n t i c - . 0 9 -8 .14 - . 0 9 -8 .07 - . 0 9 -8 . 1 4 - . 0 9 -8 . 1 0 Quebec - . 0 8 -8 . 65 - . 0 8 -8 .67 - .08 -8 .66 - . 0 8 -8 .66 West .01 1 . 23 .01 1 .29 .01 1 .23 .01 1 .27 Constant . 1 9 6. 37 . 1 9 1 .26 .21 9 .01 .18 6 . 43 R 2 .05157 .05112 .05157 .05129 R 2 Change* Coe f f . F Coef f • F Coeff • F Coef f • F (X) . 038 : 21 .62 .038 21 .60 .039 21 .68 .038 21 .63 (Per iod) .001 4.32 .001 3 .75 .001 4 .88 .002 5 .02 (Age) .001 .69 .001 .66 .001 .72 .002 .92 (Cohort) .004 1 .96 .004 1 .74 .004 1 .80 .004 1 .75 143 T a b l e XVII ( cont inued) (5) (6) (7) (8) b t b t b t b t P e r i o d 1 979 - - - - - - - -1 974 - . 0 5 -3 .73 - . 0 4 -2 .84 - . 0 3 -3 .12 - . 0 3 -3 .06 1968 - . 0 5 -2 .50 - . 0 4 -1 .69 - . 0 2 -2 . 15 - . 02 -2 .04 1 965 - . 0 5 -1 .97 - . 0 4 -1.21 - .01 -1 .14 - .01 -1 .03 Cohort 1956-58 - - - - . - - .09 2.86 1953-55 - .01 - . 2 7 - . 0 0 - . 0 9 - - .09 2.52 1950-52 .00 . 1 1 - .01 - . 2 0 - .01 - . 4 8 .08 2.35 1947-49 .01 .56 .01 .17 - . 0 0 - .19 .08 2.56 1944-46 - .01 - . 2 3 - . 0 2 - .64 - . 0 4 -1 .72 .05 1.71 1941-43 - . 0 3 -1 .02 - .05 -1.21 - . 0 7 -2 .95 .02 .70 1938-40 - . 0 5 -1.51 - . 0 7 -1 .62 - . 1 0 -3 . 95 - .01 - . 2 7 1935-37 - . 0 2 - . 6 3 - . 0 5 -1 .02 - . 0 8 -3.11 .01 .23 1932-34 - . 04 -1 .00 - . 0 7 -1 .33 - .11 -4 .06 - . 0 2 - .64 1929-31 - . 03 - . 5 6 - . 0 6 -1 .00 - . 1 0 -3 .60 - .01 - . 3 9 1926-29 - .01 - . 2 3 - . 0 5 - .74 - . 0 9 -3 .26 - .01 - . 22 1923-25 .01 .15 - . 0 3 - .44 - . 0 8 -2 .68 .01 . 1 6 1920-22 - .01 - . 0 9 - . 0 5 - .64 - . 1 0 -3 .38 - . 0 2 - . 5 6 1917-19 .01 . 19 - . 0 3 - .41 - . 0 9 -2 .90 - .01 - .24 1914-16 .00 .01 - . 0 5 - . 5 7 - .11 -3 .46 - . 0 3 - . 8 8 1911-13 .02 .25 - .03 - . 3 7 - . 1 0 -3 .05 - . 0 2 - . 5 7 1908-10 .05 .59 - .01 - . 0 8 - . 0 8 -2 .32 .00 .06 . 1905-07 .02 .23 - . 0 4 - . 3 7 - . 1 2 -3 .28 - . 0 4 -1.01 1902-04 .07 .68 . 00 . 02 - . 0 8 -2 .20 - . 0 0 - . 04 1899-1901 .08 .78 .01 .08 - . 0 8 -2 .24 .00 .09 1896-98 . 1 0 .95 .03 .24 - . 0 6 -1 .64 .02 .47 1893-95 .06 .50 - . 0 2 - . 1 6 - . 1 2 -2 .96 - . 0 4 - . 94 1890-92 .05 .43 - . 0 3 - . 23 - . 1 3 -3 .12 - . 0 5 -1 .25 1887-89 ' . 1 5 1.17 .06 .44 - . 0 4 -1 .00 - - -- 1886 .08 .62 - . 0 2 - . 13 - . 1 2 -3 .03 — -Aqe 18-20 - .08 .66 - . 0 2 - . 5 5 - . 0 2 - .71 21-23 - - .09 .85 .01 .39 .01 1 .36 24-26 - - .09 .82 .01 1 .07 - . 0 0 - . 1 0 27-29 - - .10 1.06 .03 1 .47 .02 1 .22 30-32 - .01 - . 4 8 .09 1 .00 .02 1 .05 .02 .84 33-35 - .01 - . 5 2 • .09 1 .08 .03 1 .37 .02 1.19 36-38 .00 .06 . 1 1 1 .36 .05 2.44 .04 2.20 39-41 - .01 - . 2 2 .11 1 .40 .05 2.28 .05 2.10 42-44 - . 0 3 - . 8 9 .08 1.19 .03 1 .36 .03 1 .27 45-47 - . 0 3 - . 7 0 .09 1 .40 .04 1 .86 .04 1 .77 48-50 - . 0 2 - . 4 9 .10 1 .69 .06 2.46 .06 2.38 51-53 - . 0 5 -1.01 .07 1 .37 .03 1 .44 .03 1 .42 1 4 4 54-56 - . 0 7 -1.11 .07 1 .35 .03 1 .25 .03 1 .26 57-59 - . 0 6 - . 9 6 .07 1 .67 .04 1 .64 .04 1 .66 60-62 - . 0 8 -1 . 15 .06 1 .52 .03 1 .25 .04 1 .31 63-65 - . 0 8 -1 .06 .06 1 .83 .04 1 .54 .04 1 .61 66-68 - . 12 -1 .45 .03 .94 .01 .48 .02 . 58 69-71 - . 1 0 • -1 .20 .05 1 .65 .04 1 .20 .04 1 .31 72-74 - . 1 5 -1.61 - - - . 0 0 - .04 .00 .08 75-77 - . 1 5 -1 .53 - - .01 .16 .01 .48 78-80 - . 1 7 -1 .65 - - - - - -81 + - . 1 8 -1 .54 - — - - •- -S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s Gender - . 02 - 3 . 5 6 - . 0 2 -3, . 55 - . 0 2 -3 .53 - . 0 2 -3 . 50 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 . 36 .00 .34 .01 .39 .01 .41 P r o p r i e t o r s - . 02 -1 .18 - . 0 2 -1 .22 - . 0 2 -1 . 17 - . 0 2 -1 . 1 3 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 7 2 - .01 - .75 - .01 - .76 - .01 - . 65 S k i l l e d .04 3.50 .04 3 .47 .04 3 .53 .04 3 . 58 S e m i - S k i l i e d . 03 1 .89 .03 1 .87 .03 1 .92 .03 1 .98 U n s k i l l e d .04 2.63 .03 2 .61 .04 2 .65 .04 2 .70 Farmers - .02 -1.61 -.0.2 -1 .63 - . 0 2 - 1 .59 - . 0 2 -1 . 55 C l a s s Upper - . 0 6 -4 . 34 - . 0 5 -4 .33 - . 0 6 -4 .35 - . 0 5 -4 .33 M i d d l e - . 04 -5 . 75 - . 04 -5 .73 - . 04 -5 .75 - . 04 -5 .75 No C l a s s - . 0 6 -4 .68 - . 0 6 -4 .70 - . 0 6 -4 .68 - . 0 6 -4 . 67 Educat ion .002 2.26 . 002 2 .25 .002 2 .27 .002 2 .30 R e i i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 00 - . 3 9 - . 0 0 - .38 - . 0 0 - .38 - . 0 0 - .34 Other - .01 - . 4 2 - .01 - .43 - .01 - .44 - .01 - .43 No r e l i g i o n .08 5.19 .08 5 . 17 .08 5 . 1 7 .08 5 • 14 Region A t l a n t i c - . 0 9 -8 .14 - . 0 9 -8 . 1 3 - . 0 9 -8 . 1 3 - . 0 9 -8 .10 Quebec - . 08 - 8 . 6 5 - . 0 8 -8 .66 - . 0 8 -8 .65 - . 0 8 -8 .65 West .01 1 .22 .01 1 .23 .01 1 .24 .01 1 .27 Constant .21 8.18 . 1 2 1 .05 .20 7 .91 . 1 1 3 .99 R 2 .05 1 50 .05155 .05149 .05123 R 2 Change* Coef f . F Coef f • F Coef f • F C o e f f . F (X) .039 : 21 .66 .038 21 .63 .038 21 .63 .038 21 .60 (Per iod) .002 5.38 .001 3 .78 .001 3 .69 .001 3 .57 (Age) .001 .75 .001 .78 .001 .71 .001 .71 (Cohort) .004 1 .76 .004 1 .73 .005 2 . 1 2 .005 2 .27 N=9677 * R 2 Change i n d i c a t e s the net c o n t r i b u t i o n to the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d made by each f a c t o r . The (X) i s the net e f f e c t of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s combined. 1 45 t r a d i t i o n a l weakness of the p a r t y east of O n t a r i o . U n l i k e i d e n t i f i e r s wi th the two major p a r t i e s , r e l i g i o n has l i t t l e e f f e c t on NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . Those who c l a i m no r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n are somewhat more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y with the NDP but a p a r t from t h i s , NDP i d e n t i f i e r s are l i k e l y to be of any r e l i g i o u s p e r s u a s i o n . Taken as a whole and n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the p r e c e d i n g r e s u l t s , the g e n e r a l p i c t u r e i s that NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s not w e l l d e f i n e d by the s o c i a l i n d i c a t o r s used h e r e . No s o c i a l ca tegory can be l a b e l l e d as d i s t i n c t l y NDP to the same extent as C a t h o l i c s are L i b e r a l or P r o t e s t a n t s are C o n s e r v a t i v e , There are however, more smal l and s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s than was the case for the o ther two p a r t i e s . T u r n i n g to the demographic v a r i a b l e s , an i n s p e c t i o n of the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d by each dimens ion i n d i c a t e s that o n l y cohor t and p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y ; v a r i a t i o n by age has no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t in any of the models . F u r t h e r , cohor t v a r i a t i o n accounts for a l a r g e r percentage of the v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d than p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i s l e s s than that for p e r i o d e f f e c t s . The p a t t e r n s a c r o s s the d imens ions a r e , wi th the e x c e p t i o n of models 3 and 5, very s i m i l a r . Models 7 and 8 best r e f l e c t the expected c o h o r t and p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e are used as the b a s i s for the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of the demographic v a r i a b l e s . F i g u r e s IV-5 and IV-6 • c o n t a i n a graph of the e s t imates for age and c o h o r t . 14b . Figure IV-5: Age Estimates of NDP Identifiers. Models 1 - 8 0.30 Cohort (in 3 year groups) 147 Models 7 and 8 i n d i c a t e tha t NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are d i s t r i b u t e d f a i r l y evenly a c r o s s the age d i m e n s i o n , a l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l . The on ly d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n a c r o s s the d imens ion shows a very modest d e c l i n e wi th age in the i n c i d e n c e of i d e n t i f y i n g w i t h the NDP. The p a t t e r n i s not very pronounced . Given the absence of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the d imens ion and the f a i l u r e of the d imens ion as a whole to be s i g n i f i c a n t , the a p p r o p r i a t e c o n c l u s i o n i s that age has no e f f e c t on the l i k e l i h o o d of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t i e wi th the NDP. Modest but s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s are e v i d e n t . Models 7 and 8 show that the l i k e l i h o o d of an N D P i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower in 1968 and 1.974 than in 1979 a l t h o u g h no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between 1979 and 1965. V a r i a t i o n by p e r i o d in NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c l o s e l y f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n of the vote over these y e a r s . The p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n c l a i m i n g a t i e wi th the p a r t y f l u c t u a t e s w i th the e l e c t o r a l showing of the p a r t y . NDP p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are r e s p o n s i v e to s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s r e s u l t i n g i n s m a l l net s h i f t s over time in the percentage of the p o p u l a t i o n c l a i m i n g an attachment wi th the p a r t y . The p a t t e r n of v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s c o h o r t s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e x p e c t a t i o n s based on the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . C o h o r t s born i n 1940 and be fore are e q u a l l y l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the NDP, w h i l e those c o h o r t s born in 148 the 1940's and a f t e r are i n c r e a s i n g l y l i k e l y to see themselves as N D P e r ' s . In f a c t , the d i f f e r e n c e between those c o h o r t s born in 1947 and a f t e r , and c o h o r t s born b e f o r e 1940 i s s i g n i f i c a n t . The i n c r e a s e in the l i k e l i h o o d of an NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n beg ins among c o h o r t s who f i r s t e n t e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e in 1962. Thus i t c o i n c i d e s wi th the t i m i n g of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the CCF i n t o the NDP and i t s concomitant a l l i a n c e wi th o r g a n i z e d l a b o u r . The a l l i a n c e gave the NDP the r e s o u r c e s needed to mount a more e f f e c t i v e and broader appeal to the e l e c t o r a t e than had h i t h e r t o been p o s s i b l e . T h i s e f f o r t appears to have p a i d o f f in the form of a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e in the i n c i d e n c e of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among those who have e n t e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e more r e c e n t l y . Moreover , i f those p a r t y l o y a l t i e s remain s t a b l e , then the s t r e n g t h of the p a r t y ought to i n c r e a s e in the f u t u r e as o l d e r c o h o r t s d i e out and are r e p l a c e d by the younger c o h o r t s who are more i n c l i n e d toward the NDP. When model 8 i s e s t imated without the age d i m e n s i o n , the r e s u l t s remain e s s e n t i a l l y the same as before wi th o n l y t r i v i a l d i f f e r e n c e s a p p e a r i n g on some c o e f f i c i e n t s . (See T a b l e X V I I I ) . Both the p e r i o d and c o h o r t d imens ions c o n t i n u e to make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the New Democrat i c Par ty and the p a t t e r n w i t h i n each dimens ion remains unchanged. T h i s s erves to c o n f i r m the p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s . The e l i m i n a t i o n of the age d imens ion makes l i t t l e 149 T a b l e XVIII S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) b ± b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1956-58 .08 2 .61 Gender - . 0 2 -3 .48 1953-55 .07 2 .39 Occupat i o n : 1950-52 .08 2 .62 P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 .55 1947-49 .09 2 .92 Propr i e t o r - .01 - . 9 5 1944-46 .06 2 .08 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 5 5 1941-43 .03 1 .17. S k i l l e d .04 3.67 1938-40 .01 .38 S e m i - s k i l l e d .03 2.13 1935-37 .03 1 .08 U n s k i l l e d .04 2.81 1932-34 .01 .25 Farmers - . 0 2 -1 .48 1929-31 .02 .88 E d u c a t i o n .003 2.31 1926-28 . 03 1 .08 C l a s s : 1923-25 .04 1 .40 Upper - . 0 5 -4 .30 1920-22 .02 .62 M i d d l e - . 04 -5 .73 1917-19 .03 1 .07 No C l a s s - . 0 6 -4.74 1914-16 .01 .26 Reg ion: 1911-13 .01 .27 A t l a n t i c - .09 -8 .06 1908- 1 0 .01 1 .29 Quebec - . 0 8 -8 .70 1905-07 - .01 - .39 West .01 1 . 34 1902-04 . 03 .83 R e l i g i o n : 1899-1901 .02 . 63 C a t h o l i c - . 0 0 - . 2 7 1896-98 .04 1 . 1 5 Other - .01 - . 40 1893-95 - . 02 - . 66 No r e l i g i o n .08 5.24 1890-92 - . 0 5 - 1 .23 1887-89 . Constant . 1 2 4.4 2 -1886 _ — _ — — — R 2 .050 Per i od 1979 R 2 Change C o e f f . F 1974 .' - .04 -3 .76 (X) .039 21 . 67 1 968 - . 0 3 -2 .92 ( P e r i o d ) .002 5.15 1 965 - . 02 -1 .88 (Cohort ) .005 2.40 1 50 d i f f e r e n c e to the e s t i m a t i o n ; r a t h e r , the s t o r y of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e v o l v e s around p e r i o d and cohor t e f f e c t s . With re spec t to the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the c o h o r t r e s u l t s o f f e r the s t r o n g e s t support for the theory of any of the ev idence from the a n a l y s e s to t h i s p o i n t . A c c o r d i n g to the t h e o r y , the expans ion of p a r t y support i s a c h i e v e d through the r e c r u i t m e n t of young people who have not yet deve loped s t r o n g p a r t y t i e s r a t h e r than through the c o n v e r s i o n of o l d e r people who presumably are a l r e a d y committed to a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . The p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s that the young were indeed more r e s p o n s i v e to the appea l of the NDP than e s t a b l i s h e d v o t e r s ; no cohor t d i f f e r e n c e s would have been e v i d e n t i f a l l c o h o r t s had responded s i m i l a r l y . In an a n a l y s i s of the s o c i a l bases of the v o t e , C l a r k e et a l . found that the NDP f a r e d b e t t e r among younger than o l d e r v o t e r s . 1 5 The present a n a l y s i s suggests that t h i s i s not due to age per se or a g e - r e l a t e d phenomena more g e n e r a l l y . R a t h e r , i t i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the NDP. The endorsement g iven by the cohort r e s u l t s to the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n must be q u a l i f i e d by the f a c t that s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s were a l s o present in the a n a l y s i s . While support for the p a r t y seems to be growing in a t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected manner, s h o r t - t e r m movement in and out of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the p a r t y i s a l s o an 151 important f a c t o r of NDP p a r t y a t tachments . , R e g i o n a l A n a l y s e s A l t h o u g h the focus of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s on n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s , a b r i e f i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p a t t e r n s w i t h i n r e g i o n s was undertaken to see i f they m i r r o r e d the n a t i o n a l r e s u l t s . As i t turned o u t , there were not enough cases to a l l o w an a n a l y s i s of r e s i d e n t s of B r i t i s h Columbia or the A t l a n t i c p r o v i n c e s . However, we were a b l e to conduct an a n a l y s i s for r e s i d e n t s of Quebec, O n t a r i o , and the P r a i r i e p r o v i n c e s u s i n g four year i n s t e a d of three year c o h o r t groups to ensure a reasonable number of cases in each c a t e g o r y . . The age d imens ion was omi t t ed g iven that we found no age e f f e c t s in the n a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s g e n e r a l l y c o n f i r m that p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n i s important w i t h i n each r e g i o n for a l l three p a r t i e s (See Appendix I I : T a b l e s X L I I I , X L I V , and X L V . The a n a l y s i s shows (a) that the p e r i o d dimension i s s i g n i f i c a n t and (b) that s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the d imens ion i s a l s o p r e s e n t , f or L i b e r a l s and C o n s e r v a t i v e s in a l l three r e g i o n s and for the NDP in O n t a r i o . The f i n d i n g of p e r i o d e f f e c t s w i t h i n r e g i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th the r e s u l t s of the n a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . At the same t ime , s i g n i f i c a n t c o h o r t v a r i a t i o n i s p r e s e n t i n some r e g i o n s . Younger c o h o r t s of Quebeckers are l e s s l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y w i th the L i b e r a l p a r t y than o l d e r 152 c o h o r t s . Cohort v a r i a t i o n i s a l s o present for C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s in Quebec and for NDP i d e n t i f i e r s in Quebec and O n t a r i o . Absent however, are c o h o r t e f f e c t s for any of the p a r t i e s for r e s i d e n t s of the P r a i r i e p r o v i n c e s . T h i s i s n o t a b l e g iven the s u b s t a n t i a l change i n p a r t y f o r t u n e s that have taken p l a c e in t h i s r e g i o n over t ime . There i s no t r a c e of the s t r o n g e r support f o r the L i b e r a l p a r t y e a r l i e r i n t h i s c e n t u r y , nor i s the i n c r e a s e in support for the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y , b e g i n n i n g with the Die fenbaker era i n the 1950's r e f l e c t e d i n the d a t a . Both p a t t e r n s should have been present i f the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' s argument of change through r e c r u i t m e n t r a t h e r than c o n v e r s i o n was to h o l d . The absence of c o h o r t e f f e c t s i s yet another i n d i c a t i o n of the . weakness of the s tandard v e r s i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the Canadian case . T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n by no means r e p r e s e n t s a complete r e g i o n a l a n a l y s i s . In f a c t , i t i n d i c a t e s that a thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s warranted because p a t t e r n s w i t h i n r e g i o n s are n e c e s s a r i l y obscured in a n a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . For the p r e s e n t purpose , the r e s u l t s are s u f f i c i e n t to a l l ow us to c o n c l u d e that p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n i s common to a l l p a r t i e s at bo th the n a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l l e v e l s , and that g e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s are not always presen t where e x p e c t e d . 1 53 CONCLUSIONS T h i s chapter has i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of age, p e r i o d , and c o h o r t on the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th each of the three major f e d e r a l p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s . The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s are r e v e a l i n g in what they imply about the u t i l i t y of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in Canada. We begin by examining the ev idence w i t h r e s p e c t to each of the arguments which p u r p o r t to e x p l a i n the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . With respec t to the argument that movement through the l i f e c y c l e has a b e a r i n g on the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the a n a l y s i s o f f e r s no ev idence of support for t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . Age i s not s i g n i f i c a n t in any of the e s t i m a t i o n s and s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n the d imens ion i s p r e s e n t in on ly a few models . Some ev idence i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th the e x p e c t a t i o n s d e r i v e d from the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . G e n e r a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s were expected for NDP i d e n t i f i e r s and the a n a l y s i s c o n f i r m s t h e i r p r e s e n c e . Younger members of the e l e c t o r a t e are more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y wi th the NDP than o l d e r c o h o r t s . Because the young l a c k s t r o n g t i e s to a p a r t y , they are more r e c e p t i v e to the appea l s of a new p a r t y than are o l d e r members of the e l e c t o r a t e who on b a l a n c e , 1 54 have e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t i s a n r o o t s . The cohort r e s u l t s of the L i b e r a l a n a l y s i s are a l s o as expected from the t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Given the c o n s i s t e n t e l e c t o r a l r e c o r d of the L i b e r a l p a r t y i n t h i s c e n t u r y , no s i g n i f i c a n t cohor t e f f e c t s were expec ted and none were found. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the p r e c e d i n g e v i d e n c e , the m a j o r i t y of r e s u l t s from the a n a l y s e s in t h i s c h a p t e r works a g a i n s t the t h e o r y . Evidence of p a r t i s a n i n s t a b i l i t y i s found i n a l l a n a l y s e s and comes from a number of d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the f o l l o w i n g ev idence poses s e r i o u s problems for the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n : 1) A c c o r d i n g to the t h e o r y , the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r . Where p a r t y f o r t u n e s have f l u c t u a t e d h i s t o r i c a l l y , cohor t v a r i a t i o n in p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n should be p r e s e n t . To i l l u s t r a t e , c o n s i d e r the American c a s e . In t h e i r a n a l y s i s of American p a r t y l o y a l t i e s , Campbel l et a l . argued tha t the s h i f t i n the p a r t i s a n balance from p r o - R e p u b l i c a n p r i o r to 1932 to pro-Democrat a f t e r 1932 was l a r g e l y because new c o h o r t s e n t e r i n g the e l e c t o r a t e in 1932 and a f t e r were d e c i d e d l y pro -Democra t . Over time the replacement of the o l d e r p r o - R e p u b l i c a n c o h o r t s by these young c o h o r t s produced a rea l ignment in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t i s a n f o r c e s . The presence of cohort v a r i a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d the ev idence f o r the argument. When t h e i r 1950's data were broken down by 155 c o h o r t , a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e in the percentage c l a i m i n g a Democrat i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was found between those who had e n t e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e in 1932 or a f t e r and those who had e n t e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e be fore tha t d a t e . 1 6 Moreover , because the p a t t e r n was e v i d e n t in data c o l l e c t e d some twenty years a f t e r the event , the c l a i m f o r the s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was enhanced. I f p a r t y t i e s were u n s t a b l e no d i f f e r e n c e by c o h o r t would have been found. In the Canadian c a s e , c o h o r t d i f f e r e n c e s sh ou ld have been most ev ident for C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s g iven the dramat i c f l u c t u a t i o n in the l o n g - t e r m p a t t e r n of e l e c t o r a l support for the p a r t y . But t h i s a n a l y s i s produces no ev idence of these d i f f e r e n c e s ; g e n e r a l l y , a l l c o h o r t s e x h i b i t the same p r o p e n s i t y to i d e n t i f y wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y . The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t must s u r e l y be that there has been enough movement in and out of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the p a r t y to obscure these h i s t o r i c a l p a t t e r n s from v iew. T h i s does not mean that a l l C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s have no h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s . But i f the bulk of C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y attachments had been s t a b l e , cohor t d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d have been presen t i n the a n a l y s i s . T h e i r absence i s taken as an i n d i c a t i o n of some degree of movement. In s h o r t , the C o n s e r v a t i v e r e s u l t s are at odds w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and s t r o n g l y suggest tha t C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y a t tachments cannot be understood in terms of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . J 2) P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s thought to be roo ted in the norms of s o c i a l groups . Whi le the a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the p a r t i s a n s h i p of r e g i o n a l and r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s , i t a l s o showed tha t the magnitude of those c l e a v a g e s f l u c t u a t e d over the f o u r t e e n year span under o b s e r v a t i o n here for both L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i s a n s ^ The p a r t i s a n s h i p of a s o c i a l group i s the aggregated p a r t i s a n s h i p of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s who make up that g r o u p . The change in the r e l a t i v e s i z e of s o c i a l c l eavages over time r e f l e c t s some s h i f t i n g of the l o y a l t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s who make up that group . 3) P e r i o d e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e s h o r t - t e r m movement in i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y a t tachments . In the a n a l y s e s , s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s were present for i d e n t i f i e r s wi th a l l three p a r t i e s . Moreover , p e r i o d was always the most s i g n i f i c a n t of the demographic v a r i a b l e s . In each i n s t a n c e the p a t t e r n of p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n fo l l owed f l u c t u a t i o n s in the p a r t y ' s e l e c t o r a l showing. Moreover , the r e s u l t s of the ana lyse s w i t h i n r e g i o n s a l s o r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n f o r i d e n t i f i e r s w i th each of the p a r t i e s . Campbel l et a l . argue that p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s l e s s s u b j e c t to s h o r t - t e r m i n f l u e n c e than the v o t e . The g r e a t e r s t a b i l i t y compared to the vote i s c r u c i a l to t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as an independent l o n g - t e r m i n f l u e n c e on the f o r m a t i o n of p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s and on the v o t i n g d e c i s i o n i t s e l f . The 157 f i n d i n g of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n i n d i c a t e s that at l e a s t some p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in Canada respond to the s h o r t - t e r m i n f l u e n c e s which a l s o determine the v o t e . T h i s r e s u l t i s not c o n s i s t e n t wi th the theory of par ty i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The ev idence of s h o r t - t e r m f l u c t u a t i o n a l s o bears on the p r e v i o u s c o n c l u s i o n s wi th re spec t to c o h o r t . In p a r t i c u l a r , the c o n c l u s i o n s for C o n s e r v a t i v e s are s t r e n g t h e n e d whi le those for L i b e r a l s and New Democrats are weakened. The absence of s i g n i f i c a n t cohort e f f e c t s for C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s was i n t e r p r e t e d as an i n d i c a t i o n of i n s t a b i l i t y . Of c o u r s e , the p e r i o d e f f e c t s for tha t par ty i n d i c a t e the same t h i n g . Both p i e c e s of ev idence t h e r e f o r e l e a d to the c o n c l u s i o n that many C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s are not l o y a l to the p a r t y over t i m e . For the NDP, the p e r i o d e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of i n d i v i d u a l movement o v e r l a i d on a c o h o r t p a t t e r n which shows an i n c r e a s i n g l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among those who have e n t e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e most r e c e n t l y . Even wh i l e the NDP base of support appears to be growing, s i g n i f i c a n t s h o r t - t e r m i n s t a b i l i t y i s a l s o p r e s e n t , s u g g e s t i n g movement i n t o and out of the p a r t y . For the L i b e r a l s , the f i n d i n g of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s makes the c o h o r t r e s u l t s f or that p a r t y ambiguous. I f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s merely an i n d i c a t o r of the par ty 158 the i n d i v i d u a l f i n d s c u r r e n t l y most a t t r a c t i v e , there i s no reason to expect any v a r i a t i o n in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th a p a r t y a c r o s s c o h o r t s . Of c o u r s e , t h i s i s what we have found - no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s the c o h o r t d imens ion are p r e s e n t . When the c o h o r t r e s u l t s are c o n s i d e r e d in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n , they p r o v i d e support for the argument that L i b e r a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s are s h o r t - t e r m a t t a c h m e n t s . In the present a n a l y s i s , there i s no way of d e c i d i n g between the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the L i b e r a l cohor t p a t t e r n . But at the very l e a s t , the r e s u l t s warn a g a i n s t t r e a t i n g the c o h o r t p a t t e r n as o f f e r i n g u n q u a l i f i e d support for the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The cohor t ev idence becomes ambiguous in l i g h t of the presence of s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s . When the ev idence from a l l the a n a l y s e s in t h i s c h a p t e r i s c o n s i d e r e d , the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f a r e s p o o r l y . In f a c t , none of the r e s u l t s for any of the three p a r t i e s comes down s q u a r e l y on the s i d e of the t h e o r y . For the NDP, the c o h o r t p a t t e r n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th the t h e o r y , but the accompanying p e r i o d e f f e c t s are n o t . The L i b e r a l p e r i o d e f f e c t s q u a l i f y the c o h o r t p a t t e r n for the p a r t y as i n d i c a t i n g support for the t h e o r y . For the C o n s e r v a t i v e s , 1 59 the r e s u l t s from both c o h o r t and p e r i o d run c o n t r a r y to e x p e c t a t i o n s based on the t h e o r y . In s h o r t , there i s much ev idence which runs a g a i n s t the theory and very l i t t l e which works i n . i t s f a v o u r . An important caveat remains wi th r e s p e c t to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n j u s t p r e s e n t e d . I have t r e a t e d . the r e s u l t s for p e r i o d as an i n d i c a t i o n of a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of i n d i v i d u a l change in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . I t must be r e c o g n i z e d however, that the p e r i o d ev idence i n d i c a t e s on ly s m a l l net change in . the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n from one e l e c t i o n to the next . The extent of the movement that produced these r e s u l t s cannot be de termined from the a n a l y s i s . I t may be the r e s u l t of widespread but o f f s e t t i n g exchanges between p a r t i e s , and as such would pose s e r i o u s problems for the u t i l i . t y of the theory in t h i s c o u n t r y . But the p e r i o d e f f e c t s may be the product of movement by on ly a s m a l l percentage of the p o p u l a t i o n , in which case the consequences for the theory are f a r l e s s s e r i o u s . Moreover , such smal l p e r i o d e f f e c t s as we have uncovered here can be a s s i g n e d a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r a t h e r than a s u b s t a n t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Converse does t h i s in response to an American study which found s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d v a r i a t i o n of a magnitude s i m i l a r to that in the presen t 1 60 a n a l y s i s . 1 7 He argues a g a i n s t a s u b s t a n t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p e r i o d e f f e c t s and i n s t e a d , a t t r i b u t e s t h e i r presence to sampl ing v a r i a t i o n and to measurement e r r o r . With re spec t to sampl ing v a r i a b l i t y , he reminds us that surveys do not c a p t u r e wi th a b s o l u t e a c c u r a c y the p o p u l a t i o n s they p u r p o r t to r e p r e s e n t . Some e r r o r may be present and i t may be r e s p o n s i b l e for the s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between the survey y e a r s in our a n a l y s e s . I t i s c u r i o u s however, that the p e r i o d r e s u l t s f o l l ow the p a t t e r n that they do - that i s , the tendency of p a r t i s a n s h i p to t r a v e l wi th the v o t e . I t i s not obvious why v a r i a t i o n s between samples shou ld produce f l u c t u a t i o n s in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in such a p a t t e r n or in -any p a t t e r n at a l l . One would expect such v a r i a t i o n to be random r a t h e r than s y s t e m a t i c . The s u s p i c i o n remains t h e r e f o r e , that there i s more at work here than j u s t sampl ing v a r i a b i l i t y . Converse a l s o p o i n t s out that the measure used to gauge p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s not always r e l i a b l e . The p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n f a i l s to d i s t i n g u i s h ' t r u e ' i d e n t i f i e r s from those people who are s imply g i v i n g a response i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t v o t i n g p r e f e r e n c e . Converse admits t h i s i s a problem i n American s t u d i e s and acknowledges that between 10 and 25% of the American p o p u l a t i o n i s "so remote from p s y c h o l o g i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l l i f e t h a t the n o t i o n of an a b i d i n g l o y a l t y to a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y which u n d e r l i e s the p a r t y ID 161 measure i s next to m e a n i n g l e s s . " 1 8 I t f o l l o w s tha t f l u c t u a t i o n s which are l a b e l l e d as p e r i o d e f f e c t s might be a t t r i b u t e d to the t r a n s i e n t responses of those who are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y u n i n v o l v e d in p o l i t i c a l l i f e . T h i s may a l s o account for the tendency of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to move wi th the v o t e . 1 62 Footnotes 1. R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , " P o l i t i c a l G e n e r a t i o n s and E l e c t o r a l M o b i l i z a t i o n in Canada ," Paper p r e s e n t e d to the Conference on G e n e r a t i o n s and P o l i t i c a l Change, Quebec C i t y , -June, 1986, p . 5 - 7 . 2. H a r o l d D. C l a r k e , Jane J e n s o n , Lawrence L e d u c , and Jon H . Pammett, P o l i t i c a l Cho ice i n Canada, a b r i d g e d e d i t i o n , ( T o r o n t o : M c G r a w - H i l l R y e r s o n , 1980), C h a p t e r s 10 and 12; and Lawrence L e d u c , H a r o l d D. C l a r k e , Jane J e n s o n , and Jon H . Pammett, " P a r t i s a n I n s t a b i l i t y in Canada: E v i d e n c e from a New Pane l Study", American  P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence Review, 78 (1984), p .470-484 . 3. Norman B. Ryder , "The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of S o c i a l Change," American S o c i a l o g i c a l Review, 30 (Dec. 1965), p . 843-861. 4. The cohort replacement argument has been used to e x p l a i n both abrupt and g r a d u a l change i n p a r t y . a l i g n m e n t . Examples of abrupt change are found in Angus Campbel l e t . a l . , The American V o t e r , ( a b r i d g e d e d i t i o n ) , (New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1964) , p . 90; and K r i s t i Anderson , " G e n e r a t i o n , P a r t i s a n S h i f t , and Rea l ignment : A Glance Back to the New D e a l , " in N. N i e , S. V e r b a , and J . P e t r o c i k , The Changing American V o t e r , (Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979), p . 7 4-95. For an example of g r a d u a l change due to cohor t replacement see Dav id B u t l e r and Donald S tokes , P o l i t i c a l Change in B r i t a i n , (London: M a c m i l l a n , 1969), p . 263-274. 5. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the vote i s expressed in terms of the t o t a l e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n r a t h e r than as a percentage of the t o t a l vote because the samples to be a n a l y z e d are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , of the t o t a l e l i g i b l e p o p u l a t i o n , not j u s t the v o t i n g p o p u l a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e i t seems reasonab le to use t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n to e s t imate the performance of the p a r t y over t i m e . 6. T h i s i s not to say that there were no changes i n the r e g i o n a l s t r e n g t h of the L i b e r a l or C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t i e s . However, the a n a l y s i s focusses on n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s . We do not expect, r e g i o n a l f l u c t u a t i o n s to show up in the n a t i o n a l r e s u l t s . 7. The c u t t i n g p o i n t s of 1935 and 1957 a p p r o x i m a t e l y agree wi th B l a k e ' s a n a l y s i s of c r i t i c a l e l e c t i o n s in Canada. 1 63 In p a r t i c u l a r , Blake f i n d s that the e l e c t i o n s of 1925, 1935, 1958 and 1962 score h i g h on h i s measure of v o l a t i l i t y . See Donald E . B l a k e , "1896 and A l l T h a t : C r i t i c a l E l e c t i o n s in C a n a d a , " Canadian J o u r n a l of  P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 12 (June , 1979), p . 259-279. 8. An i n s p e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n matr ix r e v e a l s three c o e f f i c i e n t s g r e a t e r than 0 .4 , w i th the h i g h e s t be ing 0 .612. The c o l l i n e a r i t y between the age and cohor t d imens ions as a whole i s p r o b a b l y s t r o n g however. See Chapter I I . 9. R e c a l l that w i th the e x c e p t i o n of e d u c a t i o n , the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s are measured as dummy v a r i a b l e s . The r e s i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s are as f o l l o w s : for gender - males; for o c c u p a t i o n - ' those not in the w o r k f o r c e ' ; for s u b j e c t i v e s o c i a l c l a s s - 'working c l a s s ' ; for r e g i o n -O n t a r i o ; for r e l i g i o n - P r o t e s t a n t s . See Chapter II for a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n . 10. Note that t h i s a n a l y s i s may a l s o c o n c e a l s i g n i f i c a n t r e g i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in the e f f e c t s of s o c i a l i n d i c a t o r s on p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . For the c o u n t r y as a whole, , the a n a l y s i s suggests these f a c t o r s have weak e f f e c t s . T h i s may be because the i d e n t i c a l s o c i a l f a c t o r s have d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s in d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s / p r o v i n c e s but when combined as we have done h e r e , they c a n c e l each other o u t . 11. See for example, H a r o l d C l a r k e , Jane J e n s e n , Lawrence Leduc , and on Pammett, P o l i t i c a l Cho ice in Canada, ( T o r o n t o : M c G r a w - H i l l Ryerson"! 1979), c h a p t e r 4~j and Jean A . Laponce , " P o s t - d i e t i n g E l e c t o r a l Cleavages in Canadian F e d e r a l E l e c t i o n s , 1949-68: M a t e r i a l for a F o o t n o t e , " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , 5 (June, 1972), p . 270-286. 12. But note in Appendix I I : T a b l e XXXIX tha t t h i s i s not t r u e in 1968 and 1979. The s i g n s in these y e a r s run in the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n and thus may c a n c e l each other out in the f u l l a n a l y s i s . 13. Note tha t these r e s u l t s are not c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s each s u r v e y . (See Appendix : T a b l e X ) . 14. C l a r k e e t . a l . , op . c i t . , p . 87-88. 15. I b i d , p . 87-88. 16. Angus C a m p b e l l , P h i l i p E . C o n v e r s e , Warren E . M i l l e r , and Donald E . S t o k e s , The American V o t e r , (New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1960), p .154 . 1 64 17. P h i l i p Converse , The Dynamics of Par ty Suppor t , ( B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1976), p . 123-130. 18. I b i d . , p . 127. Another f a c t o r which might account for p e r i o d e f f e c t s i s the l a p s e between the e l e c t i o n and time of i n t e r v i e w . Johnston argues that f i e l d w o r k which takes p l a c e over a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d of time a l lows for the p o s s i b i l i t y tha t s h o r t - t e r m events may cause some people to d e f e c t . He f i n d s that the C o n s e r v a t i v e share of i d e n t i f i e r s decrease at the r a t e of n e a r l y a percentage p o i n t per week from the time of the 1979 e l e c t i o n to the t ime when i n t e r v i e w i n g comple ted . I i n t e r p r e t t h i s as f u r t h e r ev idence of i n s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the s h o r t - t e r m . See R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , "Problems in the C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Comparison of Mass P a r t i s a n s h i p " , Paper p r e p a r e d for the Midwest P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n Annual G e n e r a l M e e t i n g , C h i c a g o , ( A p r i l , 1986), p . 20-21. But i f the four surveys v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y in the l e n g t h of time i t took to complete the i n t e r v i e w i n g , then t h i s might account for the d i f f e r e n c e in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c r o s s s u r v e y s . 1 65 CHAPTER V A PANEL ANALYSIS OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION The ev idence from the p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s e s works a g a i n s t the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In t u r n , t h i s p r o v i d e s reason to suspect tha t i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y l o y a l t i e s a l s o do not behave in a t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected manner. To determine whether or not these s u s p i c i o n s are j u s t i f i e d r e q u i r e s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . In t h i s c h a p t e r then , the focus of the a n a l y s i s turns to a examinat ion of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c r o s s time us ing data from the Canadian N a t i o n a l E l e c t i o n Panel S tudy . I f the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the cohor t a n a l y s i s i s c o r r e c t , the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s should a l s o produce r e s u l t s which are not c o n s i s t e n t wi th t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n begins by documenting the extent of change in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n over the 1974 to 1980 p e r i o d covered by the pane l d a t a . F o l l o w i n g t h a t , a n a l y s e s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and age, the e f f e c t of p a r t y on d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y , the p a t t e r n s of change in the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l and aggregate change, are u n d e r t a k e n . As a n t i c i p a t e d , the r e s u l t s of most a n a l y s e s do not s i t w e l l wi th the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 66 The Canadian N a t i o n a l E l e c t i o n Pane l Study c o n t a i n s t h r e e p a n e l s . The f i r s t i n c l u d e s 1353 respondents i n t e r v i e w e d i n 1974 and 1979, the second c o n t a i n s 1770 respondents i n t e r v i e w e d in 1979 and 1980, and the t h i r d c o n t a i n s 865 respondents i n t e r v i e w e d in 1974, 1979 and 1980. There i s some o v e r l a p in the membership of the p a n e l s , in tha t a l l members of the three-wave pane l are i n c l u d e d in each of the two-wave p a n e l s . T h i s should work to reduce d i f f e r e n c e s between p a n e l s . N o n e t h e l e s s , : each pane l i s unique in the l e n g t h of time i t encompasses and the p a r t i c u l a r e l e c t i o n p a i r s c o v e r e d . In. f a c t , comparisons between pane l s w i l l show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y d e s p i t e the f a c t that a l l pane l s come from the same g e n e r a l p e r i o d and c o n t a i n many of the same r e s p o n d e n t s . The Extent of P a r t i s a n Change Begin by c o n s i d e r i n g the i n c i d e n c e of change in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n ' t h e three p a n e l s . The amount of change in the d i r e c t i o n 1 of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l e , as the data in T a b l e XIX make c l e a r . Whi le a m a j o r i t y of respondents in each pane l m a i n t a i n the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a s u b s t a n t i a l m i n o r i t y e x h i b i t d i r e c t i o n a l change. To i l l u s t r a t e , over the n ine month p e r i o d c o v e r e d by the 1979-80 p a n e l , s l i g h t l y more than one of four respondents r e p o r t a change in p a r t i s a n s h i p . The i n c i d e n c e of change i s 1.67 T a b l e XIX The S t a b i l i t y of the D i r e c t i o n Component of  P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n * by Panel Pane l 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 S t a b l e Not S t a b l e 59.9% 40. 1% 100.0% (865) 65.9% 34. 1% 100.0% (1353) 74.21 25.8% 100.0% (1770) T o t a l N=( ) S t a t i s t i c s For a l l three pane l s c h i s q . = 6 0 . 2 6 d . f .=2 p<.0 Between Panels 1974-79-80 & 1974-79 c h i sq.=8.32 d . f .=1 p<.01 1974-79-80 & 1979-80 c h i sq.=56.06 d . f . = 1 p<.001 1974-79 & 1979-80 c h i s q . = 2 5 . l 8 d . f . = 1 p<.001 * To be c l a s s i f i e d as s t a b l e , respondents must g ive the same d i r e c t i o n a l response a c r o s s pane l waves. ' L e a n e r s ' and n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s are i n c l u d e d in the t a b l e . even g r e a t e r in the other p a n e l s . F u r t h e r , the volume of d i r e c t i o n a l change v a r i e s between p a n e l s . The percentage of pane l respondents showing no d i r e c t i o n a l change i s 74%, 66% and 60% for the 1979-80, 1974-79 and 1974-79-80' pane l s r e s p e c t i v e l y . The d i f f e r e n c e s are s i g n i f i c a n t a c r o s s the three p a n e l s and between any two p a n e l s . Given the o v e r l a p i n pane l membership, l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e in the i n c i d e n c e of d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y between pane l s had been a n t i c i p a t e d . The comparable data for the s t r e n g t h component 2 of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (see T a b l e XX) show that the amount of change in i n t e n s i t y i s g r e a t e r than for d i r e c t i o n . 1 68 T a b l e XX The S t a b i l i t y of the S t r e n g t h Component of  P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n * by Pane l Pane l 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 S t a b l e 30.2% 45.5% 52.7% Not S t a b l e 69.8% 54.5% 47.3% T o t a l 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N=( ) (865) (1353) (1770) S t a t i s t i c s For a l l three p a n e l s c h i sq.=118.84 d . f .=2 p<.00 Between Pane l s 1974-79-80 & 1974-79 c h i sq.=52.00 d . f .=1 p<.00l 1974-79-80 & 1979-80 c h i sq.=119.19 d . f .=1 p<.00l 1974-79 & 1979-80 c h i s q . = l 5 . 8 3 d . f .=1 p<.00l * I n c l u d e s n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s A p p r o x i m a t e l y 47% of the 1979-80 p a n e l , 55% of 1974-79 p a n e l r e spondent s , and 30% of respondents in the three-wave pane l r e p o r t a change in the i n t e n s i t y of t h e i r commitment to a p a r t y . The d i f f e r e n c e between p a n e l s i s s i g n i f i c a n t . As was the case for d i r e c t i o n , p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h a l s o changes c o n s i d e r a b l y in the s h o r t - t e r m . The extent of movement on both components i s summarized in T a b l e X X I . A m i n o r i t y of respondents i n each p a n e l e x h i b i t p a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y over t i m e . 3 C l e a r l y , the norm for the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole i s one of movement r a t h e r than s t a b i l i t y when both components are c o n s i d e r e d . There i s more movement in i n t e n s i t y than i n d i r e c t i o n , but even the volume of change on the l a t t e r component i s of s u f f i c i e n t 169 T a b l e XXI Summary of S t a b i l i t y in P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  1974-79-80, 1974-79, 1979-80 Panels Panel 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 S t a b l e D i r e c t i o n and S t r e n g t h 24.6% 37.6% 43.7% Change i n S t r e n g t h only 35.4% 28.3% 30.5% Change D i r e c t i o n 40.1% 34.1% 25.8% T o t a l 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N=( ) (865) (1353) (1770) c h i sq .=!05 .49 d . f .=4 p<.00! magnitude to warn a g a i n s t a c o n c l u s i o n of s t a b i l i t y . These r e s u l t s cannot be a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t that n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s are i n c l u d e d in the c a l c u l a t i o n of s t a b i l i t y r a t e s . To i l l u s t r a t e , T a b l e XXII c o n t a i n s data showing the s t a b i l i t y and movement of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s for f i r s t - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s o n l y . A comparison of these data wi th those in T a b l e XXI r e v e a l s on ly s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s . There i s s l i g h t l y l e s s d i r e c t i o n a l change and somewhat more movement i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h in a l l three pane l s when only f i r s t - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s are c o n s i d e r e d . Moreover , the d i f f e r e n c e s in the amount of change between the pane l s are s i g n i f i c a n t . In s h o r t , the e l i m i n a t i o n of f i r s t - w a v e n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s from the a n a l y s i s does not produce a major change i n the extent of movement in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 v u T a b l e XXII Summary of S t a b i l i t y in P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  1974-79-80, 1974-79, 1979-80 Pane l s  ( F i r s t - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s o n l y T Panel 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 S t a b l e D i r e c t i o n and S t r e n g t h Change in S t r e n g t h only Change D i r e c t i o n T o t a l N=( ) 40.5% 34.6% 100.0% (755) 24.6% 32.9% 29.9% 1 00.0% (1154) 36.9% 34.6% 21.4% 100.0% (1556) 44.0% c h i sq.=94.84 d . f .=4 p<.00l One e x p l a n a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e in s t a b i l i t y between pane l s may be t h a t each pane l covers a d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h of t i m e . Note that the extent of change i n c r e a s e s wi th pane l a t t r i b u t e d to changes in the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n , for example, m a r r i a g e , d i v o r c e , r e l o c a t i o n , or a change in o c c u p a t i o n . " More of t h i s type of change i s l i k e l y to occur over the l o n g - t e r m than the s h o r t - t e r m . But another e x p l a n a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e in s t a b i l i t y between the p a n e l s may be that the r a t e of change i s u n s t a b l e , v a r y i n g in response to the immediate p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s which bear on each p a n e l . Whatever the reason , i t sh ou ld be c l e a r that p a r t i s a n change i s common in the 1974 to 1980 p e r i o d . At f i r s t g l a n c e , the extent of change does not bode w e l l for the l e n g t h . Some movement in p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may be 0 17.1 theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . However, i t must be r e c o g n i z e d that wh i l e the theory p r e d i c t s a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of s t a b i l i t y , i t does not p r e d i c t p e r f e c t s t a b i l i t y . Moreover , change need not damage the theory at a l l i f i t o c c u r s in a manner p r e d i c t e d by the t h e o r y . Consequent ly , the purpose of much of the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s e s i s to determine i f expected p a t t e r n s of movement are present in the d a t a . "Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Age T h i s s e c t i o n searches for the expected r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and age, and between d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and age. We begin wi th an examinat ion of the f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p . T a b l e XXIII shows the average s t r e n g t h 5 of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n each wave of the pane l for those who change the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r p a r t y t i e over the 1974-80 p e r i o d and for those who do n o t . In 1974, s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s are s t r o n g e r p a r t i s a n s than are those who subsequent ly change t h e i r p a r t y t i e . T h i s i s as expected s i n c e d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y i s assumed to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h weakness of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F u r t h e r , the e f f e c t of i n s t a b i l i t y i s to s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduce the average l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h from the i n i t i a l s t a n d i n g . W i t h i n the 'not s t a b l e ' c a t e g o r y , mean p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s 1.98 in 1974, f a l l s to 1.30 in 1979, and r i s e s somewhat in 1980 to 172 1.48. T h i s decrease in p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y i s a l s o as expec ted from t h e o r y . The d e v i a n t r e s u l t in t h i s t a b l e i s the p a t t e r n : for s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s over the three waves of the p a n e l . The theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r e d i c t s that p a r t i s a n Tab le XXIII Average S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n By Panel Wave For S t a b l e and Not S t a b l e I d e n t i f i e r s * Pane l Wave 1 974 1 979 1 980 N=( ) (1974-79-80 Panel ) S t a b l e 2.29 2.24 2.30 (462 ) Not S t a b l e 1 .98 1 .30 1 .48 (233 ) * Scores are for f i r s t - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s who i n d i c a t e d some degree of s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . S t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s the average of an o r d i n a l s c a l e r a n g i n g from a low of 1 to a h igh of 3. s t r e n g t h shou ld i n c r e a s e over time for those who m a i n t a i n a s t a b l e p a r t y t i e . T h i s i s not the case h e r e . The 1979 score i s lower than t h a t . f o r 1974, and the 1980 score i s about the same as in 1974. Sys temat ic i n c r e a s e s in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h are not presen t in the d a t a . Two f a c t o r s might account for t h i s . The p a t t e r n might r e f l e c t p e r i o d e f f e c t s . The p o l i t i c a l events s u r r o u n d i n g the 1979 and 1980 e l e c t i o n s may have loosened the t i e s of 173 some p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s w i t h o u t c a u s i n g a d i r e c t i o n a l change. Or, the p a t t e r n may be the r e s u l t of r e g r e s s i o n a r t i f a c t s -t h a t i s , the tendency of o u t l i e r s t o move over r e p e a t e d measurements toward the p o p u l a t i o n mean. Tab l e X X I V t a k e s the p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s and f u r t h e r breaks them down by age - f o r those 18-30, 31-50, and 51 y e a r s of age and o v e r 6 based on t h e i r r e p o r t e d age i n the 1974 wave of the p a n e l . A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and age s h o u l d be p r e s e n t f o r s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s . For u n s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s , no s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two i s e x p e c t e d . In a d d i t i o n , the r e g r e s s i o n a r t i f a c t i s c o n t r o l l e d by r e s t r i c t i n g the a n a l y s i s t o those i d e n t i f i e r s who f a l l i n the middle c a t e g o r y of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h ( i . e . f a i r l y s t r o n g i d e n t i f i e r s ) i n the 1974 wave of the p a n e l . 7 As e x p e c t e d from the t h e o r y , the average l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i n c r e a s e s moving from the youngest t o the o l d e s t age group. T h i s p a t t e r n i s p r e s e n t a c r o s s both the 1979 and 1980 waves of the p a n e l f o r s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s . For u n s t a b l e i d e n t i f e r s , no r e l a t i o n s h i p a c r o s s age i s e v i d e n t . 8 The r e s u l t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h a c r o s s time a re mixed. A f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r the r e g r e s s i o n a r t i f a c t , the magnitude of g a i n s i n p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y f o r s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s i s g r e a t e s t f o r the o l d e s t age group w h i l e the p a t t e r n f o r the youngest group a c r o s s time i s 174 f a i r l y f l a t . T h i s r e s u l t runs oppos i t e to t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y the s t r o n g v e r s i o n of the t h e o r y . However, i t i s a l s o t r u e that in most i n s t a n c e s , g a i n s in p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y do occur under the c o n d i t i o n of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . T a b l e XXIV Mean S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Panel Wave by Age  For S t a b l e and Not S t a b l e I d e n t i f i e r s * (1974-79-80 Panel )  (1974 F a i r l y S trong I d e n t i f i e r s Only) S t a b l e I d e n t i f i e r s Age in 1974 18-30 31-50 51 + Panel Wave 1 974 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 979 1 . 96 2.10 2.21 1980 2.08 2.14 2.33 N=( ) (69) (104) (76) Not S t a b l e I d e n t i f i e r s Age in 1974 18-30 31-50 51 + Panel Wave 1974 2.00 2.00 2.00 1979 1 .40 1 .33 1 .38 1980 1.26 1.51 1 .62 N=( ) (40) (52) (39) * Scores are for f i r s t - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s who i n d i c a t e some degree of s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 75 In sum, the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s support the t h e o r y ' s p r e d i c t i o n s w i th re spec t to the s t r e n g t h component of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . G e n e r a l l y , p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h does i n c r e a s e over t ime , a l t h o u g h not where e x p e c t e d . But the o v e r r i d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n wi th r e s p e c t to p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y i s d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . A change in d i r e c t i o n depresses the l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h d r a m a t i c a l l y . We t u r n now to an examinat ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . O l d e r respondents are thought to h o l d s t r o n g e r at tachments to t h e i r p a r t y than the young due to the g r e a t e r l e n g t h of time that they have been s t a b l e p a r t i s a n s . If t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s a c c u r a t e , then we should f i n d a g r e a t e r i n c i d e n c e of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y moving from young to o l d r e s p o n d e n t s . An i n s p e c t i o n of the data in Tab le XXV r e v e a l s that t h i s i s so . In each p a n e l , a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c r e a s i n g age and d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y i s p r e s e n t . The d i f f e r e n c e in s t a b i l i t y between the young and o l d i s not very l a r g e however, amounting at best to a 12 percentage p o i n t d i f f e r e n c e in the three-wave p a n e l , 8 C l e a r l y we do not have a s i t u a t i o n in which the young are remarkably l a b i l e whi le the o l d are s t e a d f a s t l y l o y a l . Presumably , we o b t a i n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y because age a c t s as a s u r r o g a t e i n d i c a t o r of s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 0 C o n s e q u e n t l y , when c o n t r o l s for s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are i n s t i t u t e d , 176 T a b l e XXV S t a b i l i t y of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Age by Pane l* S t a b i l i t y S t a b l e Not S t a b l e N=( ) P a n e l : 1974-79-80 1 8-30 58.5^ 4 1.5 (187) Age 31-50 68. 3! 31.7 (282) 51 + 70.7% 29. 3 (224) S t a b i l i t y S t a b l e Not S t a b l e N=( ) P a n e l : 1974-79 1 8-30 65.9% 34. 1 (286) Age 31-50 68.9% 31.1 ( 437 ) 51 + 76.7% 23.3 ( 349) S t a b i l i t y S t a b l e Not S t a b l e N=( ) P a n e l : 1979-80 1 8-30 75.1% 24.9 (401 ) Age 31-50 81.8% 18.2 (514) 51 + 84 . 3% 15.7 (518) S t a t i s t i c s W i t h i n P a n e l , A c r o s s Age 1974-79-80 c h i square=7.42 df=2 p<.05 1974-79 c h i square= l0 .00 df=2 p<.01 1979-80 c h i square=13.07 df=2 p<.01 * Data are for f i r s t - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s who i n d i c a t e d some degree of s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . E n t r i e s are the percent d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e . i 177 no v a r i a t i o n in d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y a c r o s s age sh ou ld r e m a i n . I n s t e a d , s t a b i l i t y shou ld vary a c r o s s l e v e l s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . However, t h i s i s not always the case as i s apparent from an examinat ion of the data in T a b l e X X V I . S i g n i f i c a n t age d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y remain w i t h i n some c a t e g o r i e s of s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . For example, of those who r e p o r t a ' s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th one of the p a r t i e s , the young are much l e s s s t a b l e than the o l d e s t respondents whi l e the middle age group e x h i b i t s the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e of s t a b i l i t y of a l l . For 'not very s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s , the o l d e s t age group e x h i b i t s a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r r a t e of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y than the o ther groups . C l e a r l y , age has an u n a n t i c i p a t e d e f f e c t on p a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y net of the e f f e c t of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . More i m p o r t a n t l y , d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y does not vary by s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the expected manner w i t h i n two of the three age g r o u p s . Only i n the 31-50 year age group does the i n c i d e n c e of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e wi th p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . W i t h i n the youngest age group, there i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n s t a b i l i t y between ' s t r o n g ' and ' f a i r l y s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s . S i m i l a r l y , there i s no d i f f e r e n c e between ' f a i r l y s t r o n g ' and 'not very s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s in the o l d e s t age group . The theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n suggests the i n t e n s i t y of the par ty t i e account s f o r i t s s t a b i l i t y . A p p a r e n t l y , t h i s i s not always the c a s e , as the ev idence c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s . 1 78 T a b l e XXVI S t a b i l i t y of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n By Age  By F i r s t - W a v e S t r e n g t h of Attachment* (1974-79-80 Panel ) Age 18-30 31-50 51 + T o t a l N S t r e n q t h S trong 63.7% 87.2% 77.5% 78. 1% (223) F a i r l y S trong 63.0 66.8 66. 1 65.5 (379) Not Very Strong 32.7 38.3 66.0 42.4 ( 92) T o t a l 58.6% 68.2% 70.7% 66. 5% N = (186) (283 ) (225) (694) S t a t i s t i c s A c r o s s Age, W i t h i n Stength Strong c h i square=9.89 df=2 p<.01 F a i r l y S trong c h i square=0.33 df=2 p<.98 Not Very S trong c h i square=5.79 df=2 p<.06 W i t h i n Age, A c r o s s Stength 18-30 c h i square= -9.*42 " df = 2 p<. 01 31-50 c h i square=3l .04 df=2 p<.00l 51+ c h i square= 3.67 . df=2 p<.20 * 1974 Par ty I d e n t i f i e r s d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e . o n l y . E n t r i e s are the percent 179 I t i s a l s o noteworthy tha t the i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s are found i n the 1974-79 p a n e l but not i n the 1979-80 p a n e l . (Data not shown). In the l a t t e r c a s e , the r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e o r y . No d i f f e r e n c e i n s t a b i l i t y i s p r e s e n t a c r o s s age once the c o n t r o l s f or the s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n have been i n s t i t u t e d . As expec ted , d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g to s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between .age and p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n y i e l d s expected r e s u l t s with r e s p e c t to the e f f e c t s of t ime (age) and p a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y on the s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , but y i e l d s unexpected r e s u l t s w i th respec t to the e f f e c t s of age and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h on d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Age d i f f e r e n c e s in d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y are s t i l l present a f t e r p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s taken i n t o a c c o u n t , a l t h o u g h the d i f f e r e n c e s are not s y s t e m a t i c . Moreover , w i t h i n some age groups the expected v a r i a t i o n in d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y a c r o s s l e v e l s of s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s not p r e s e n t . D i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y i s not always c o n t i n g e n t on the s t r e n g t h of the p a r t y t i e . T h i s r e s u l t does not conform to t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . 180 D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y and P a r t y A f a c t o r that may have a b e a r i n g on the s t a b i l i t y of the p a r t y t i e i s p a r t y i t s e l f . The cohor t a n a l y s i s in the p r e v i o u s chapter showed s i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s to be p r e s e n t for i d e n t i f i e r s of a l l three p a r t i e s , i n d i c a t i n g s h o r t - t e r m v a r i a t i o n i n p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s . Given tha t s h o r t - t e r m f o r c e s are not l i k e l y to favour a l l p a r t i e s e q u a l l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e that s t a b i l i t y r a t e s vary between pa r t i e s . The data p r e s e n t e d in Tab le XXVII are the s t a b i l i t y r a t e s for i n i t i a l - w a v e i d e n t i f i e r s of each p a r t y . Begin by c o n s i d e r i n g the data w i t h i n each p a n e l . I t i s c l e a r that the s t a b i l i t y of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s v a r i e s by p a r t y . I d e n t i f i e r s wi th the minor p a r t i e s ( S o c i a l C r e d i t / o t h e r s ) are very u n s t a b l e , and in a b s o l u t e magnitude t h e i r s t a b i l i t y r a t e s are lower than those of n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s . T h i s suggests that the presence of a formal p a r t y s t r u c t u r e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y any more of a s t a b i l i z i n g element than no s t r u c t u r e at a l l . D i f f e r e n c e s are a l s o presen t between i d e n t i f i e r s of the t h r e e major p a r t i e s ^ For example, 1974 C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s are more s t a b l e than a l l o ther 1974 i d e n t i f i e r s i n both the three-wave and 1974-79 p a n e l s . On the o ther hand, 1979 L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s are more s t a b l e than e i t h e r 181 T a b l e XXVII D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y by I n i t i a l - W a v e P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Panel Pane l 1974-79-80 1 974-79 1979- 80 P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n % (N) % (N) % (N) L i b e r a l 65.0% (439) 69.7% (657) 85. 1% (744 ) C o n s e r v a t ive .73.3 (207) 78. 1 (318) 77.0 (508) NDP 64.3 ( 84) 64.5 (134) 76.7 (238) S o c i a l C r e d i t / o t h e r 14.3 ( 27) 37.0 ( 45) 39. 1 ( 66) N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 22.6% (110) 41.3% (200) 42.1% (214) S t a t i s t i c s W i t h i n P a n e l , A c r o s s Par ty Comparisons 1974-79-80 Panel A l l p a r t i s a n s i n c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f e r s c h i sq .= l07 .68 d . f .=4 p<. 00 A l l p a r t i s a n s e x c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f e r s c h i sq.=36.66 d . f . = 3 p<. 00 Between L I B , PC & NDP c h i sq.=4.83 d . f .=2 p<. 10 Between LIB & PC c h i s q . = 4 . 6 l d . f . = 1 p<. 05 Between PC & NDP c h i sq.=2.45 d . f . = 1 p<. 20 Between LIB & NDP c h i sq.=0.01 d . f . = 1 p<. 99 1974-79 Pane l A l l p a r t i s a n s i n c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f e r s c h i sq.=92.85 d . f .=4 p<. 00 A l l p a r t i s a n s e x c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f e r s c h i sq.=37.28 d . f .=3 p<. 00 Between L I B , PC & NDP c h i sq.=11.18 d . f .=2 p<. 01 Between LIB & PC c h i sq.=24.64 d . f . = 1 p<. 00 Between PC & NDP c h i sq.=9.30 d . f . = 1 • •p<. 01 Between LIB & NDP c h i sq.=1.55 d . f . = 1 p<. 30 1979-80 Pane l A l l p a r t i s a n s i n c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f e r s c h i sq.=269.42 d . f .=4 p<.00 A l l p a r t i s a n s e x c l u d i n g n o n - i d e n t i f e r s c h i s q .= 1 l9 .69 d . f .=3 p<.00 Between L I B , PC & NDP c h i s q . = l 6 . 0 2 d . f .=2 p<.00 Between LIB & PC c h i s q . = l 3 . 2 4 d . f . = 1 p<.00 Between PC & NDP c h i sq.=0.00 d . f . = 1 p<.99 Between LIB & NDP c h i sq.=8.73 d . f . = 1 p<.01 W i t h i n P a r t y - A c r o s s Pane l Comparisons L i b e r a l c h i sq.=73.02 d . f .=2 p<.00 C o n s e r v a t i v e c h i sq.=1.53 d . f .=2 p<.70 NDP c h i sq.=8.65 d . f .=2 p<.02 S o c i a l C r e d i t / o t h e r c h i s q . = 3.68 d.f.=2. p<.20 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s c h i s q . = l 2 . 4 2 d . f .=2 p<.0l 182 1979 C o n s e r v a t i v e or NDP i d e n t i f i e r s in the 1979-80 p a n e l . These r e s u l t s suggest that a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in g e n e r a l may be i n a p p r o p r i a t e . R a t h e r , they i n d i c a t e that one must c o n s i d e r the s t a b i l i t y of i d e n t i f i e r s of each p a r t y s i n c e i t i s c l e a r that s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s by p a r t y . T a b l e XXVII a l s o demonstrates that the rate of s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h i n p a r t y a c r o s s p a n e l s . T h i s i s t r u e for L i b e r a l and NDP i d e n t i f i e r s and for n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s . To i l l u s t r a t e , observe that the s t a b i l i t y r a t e s of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s i n the 1979-8.0 pane l are much h i g h e r than the comparable r a t e s for the p a r t y in the other p a n e l s . P a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g to the s p e c i f i c p e r i o d under s c r u t i n y and i t cannot be assumed that the rate of s t a b i l i t y for i d e n t i f i e r s of a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y i s cons tant a c r o s s t i m e . That the s t a b i l i t y , of p a r t y t i e s ' v a r i e s by p a r t y w i t h i n p a n e l s and between pane l s w i t h i n p a r t y suggests that s h o r t - t e r m f a c t o r s have an e f f e c t on the s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . However, these d i f f e r e n c e s might be due to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of i n i t i a l s t r e n g t h of attachment between p a r t i e s . I f one group of i d e n t i f i e r s c l a i m s t r o n g e r at tachments than i d e n t i f i e r s of other p a r t i e s , then d i f f e r e n t r a t e s of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y are expec ted . To see i f t h i s i s the c a s e , we r e p l i c a t e the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s i s for L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e and NDP i d e n t i f i e r s c o n t r o l l i n g 183 for p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h (see T a b l e X X V I I I ) . The r e s u l t s c o n t i n u e to pose problems for the t h e o r y . Whi le i t i s g e n e r a l l y t rue tha t d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s a c r o s s l e v e l s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h , some noteworthy e x c e p t i o n s remain . In many c a s e s , the weakest group of i d e n t i f i e r s (those who i n d i c a t e d a p a r t i s a n attachment but d i d not g ive a l e v e l of i n t e n s i t y , c l a s s i f i e d 'DK,NA' in the t a b l e , ) are more s t a b l e than 'not very s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s . ( T h i s i s t rue for C o n s e r v a t i v e s and NDP'ers in the three-wave and 1974-79 p a n e l s and for L i b e r a l s in a l l p a n e l s . ) Theory suggests the o p p o s i t e sh ou ld be the c a s e . Moreover , in the three-wave and 1974-79 p a n e l s , ' f a i r l y s t r o n g ' NDP i d e n t i f i e r s , a r e , in a b s o l u t e magnitude, more s t a b l e than ' s t r o n g ' NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . In the 1979-80 p a n e l , 'not very s t r o n g ' NDP i d e n t i f i e r s e x h i b i t a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y , in a b s o l u t e magni tude , than NDP i d e n t i f i e r s who r e p o r t h o l d i n g s t ronger t i e s to the p a r t y . In s h o r t , the expected p a t t e r n of i n c r e a s i n g i n s t a b i l i t y w i th d e c r e a s i n g l e v e l s of p a r t i s a n attachment i s not always p r e s e n t . F u r t h e r , s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - p a r t y d i f f e r e n c e s for ' s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s are presen t in a l l p a n e l s . Much of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the f a c t that ' s t r o n g ' NDP i d e n t i f i e r s are much l e s s s t a b l e than ' s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s of the o ther two p a r t i e s . S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - p a r t y d i f f e r e n c e s for ' f a i r l y s t r o n g ' i d e n t i f i e r s are 184 T a b l e XXVIII D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y by I n i t i a l Wave P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n  C o n t r o l l i n g For I n i t i a l Wave P a r t y S t r e n g t h by Panel Pane l 1 974- 79-80 1974-79 1979-80 P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n % (N) % (N) % (N) L i b e r a l - S t r o n g 84.8 (130) 83.9 (199) 94.0 (220) - F a i r l y S trong 62.3 (221 ) 68.4 (325) 85.8 (368) -Not Very S t r o n g 40.8 ( 58) 49.6 ( 96) 69.9 (114) -DK/NA 44.1 ( 28) 57.3 ( 36) 72.8 ( 41 ) N=( ) (437) (656) (743) PC - S t r o n g 88.0 ( 48) 88.8 ( 79) 91 .8 (120) • - F a i r l y S trong 75.0 (112) 80. 1 ( 1 55) 78.8 (270) -Not Very S trong 49.3 ( 25) 59.5 ( 55) 59.8 ( 84) -DK/NA 60.6 ( 23) 74.0 ( 29) 53. 1 ( 34) N=( ) (208) (318) ( 508) NDP - S t rong 62.7 ( 35) 65.9 ( 50) 84.3 ( 69) - F a i r l y S trong 69. 3 ( 35) 70.8 ( 58) 80.3 (114) -Not Very S trong 32.7 ( 5) 38.4 ( 14) 86.7 ( 26) -DK/NA 69.2 ( 8) 57.6 ( 12) 36.3 ( 30) • N=( ) • (83) (134) (239) S t a t i s t i c s W i t h i n P a n e l , A c r o s s P a r t y Comparisons 1974-79-80 Panel S trong c h i s q . = 39 .07 d. , f . = 2 P<-,001 F a i r l y S trong c h i s q . = 5. 31 d. , f . = 2 P<< ,10 Not Very Strong c h i s q . = 0. 33 d. , f . = 2 p<. ,98 DK/NA c h i s q . = 3. 3 1 d. , f . = 2 P<« .20 1974-79 Pane l S trong c h i s q . = 11 .79 d . f . = 2 p<. 01 F a i r l y S trong c h i s q . = 6. 57 d . f . = 2 p<. 05 Not Very Strong c h i s q . = 2. 51 d . f . = 2 p<. 30 DK/NA c h i s q . = 1 . 84 d . f . = 2 p<. 50 1979-80 Panel S trong c h i s q . = 7. .04 d. , f . = 2 P<- 05 F a i r l y S trong c h i s q . = 5. .66 d. , f . = 2 p<. 10 Not Very S trong ; c h i s q . = 7. ,75 d. , f . = 2 p<. 05 DK/NA c h i s q . = 9, ,71 d. , f . = 2 p<. 01 185 W i t h i n P a r t y , A c r o s s Panel Comparisons  L i b e r a l Strong • c h i sq.=12.31 d . f .=2 p<.0l F a i r l y Strong c h i sq .=47 .78 d . f . = 2 p<.00l Not Very Strong c h i sq .= l5.67 d . f .=2 p<.00l DK/NA c h i sq.=6 .45 d . f .=2 p<.05 Conservat i v e Strong c h i sq .=0 .82 d . f .=2 p<.98 F a i r l y Strong c h i sq .=1 .04 d . f .=2 p<.70 Not Very Strong c h i sq .=1 .20 d . f .=2 p<.70 DK/NA c h i sq .=2 .85 d . f .=2 p<.30 NDP Strong c h i sq .=7.46 d . f .=2 p<.05 F a i r l y Strong c h i sq . = 3 . l 7 d . f .=2 p<.30 Not Very Strong c h i sq .=11.64 d . f .=2 p<.0l DK/NA c h i sq .=4 .44 d . f .=2 p<.20 186 evident i n the 1974-79 panel but not i n the other p a n e l s . F u r t h e r , i n t e r - p a r t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a b i l i t y are a l s o evident i n the 1979-80 panel f o r the two weakest groups of i d e n t i f i e r s . These r e s u l t s warn a g a i n s t t r e a t i n g a l l p a r t i s a n s of same l e v e l of commitment as e q u a l l y l i k e l y t o remain s t a b l e over time. C l e a r l y they are not. Table XXVIII a l s o p r o v i d e s evidence of w i t h i n p a r t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a b i l i t y a c r o s s panels i r r e s p e c t i v e of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y between panels i s present f o r L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s at a l l l e v e l s of party s t r e n g t h . I n t e r - p a n e l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a b i l i t y are a l s o present f o r 'strong' and 'not very strong' NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . However, there are no i n t e r - p a n e l d i f f e r e n c e s f o r Conservative i d e n t i f i e r s . Although the r e s u l t s are not c o n s i s t e n t throughout, there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence that the s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n does not account adequately f o r d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . T h i s i s unexpected from theory. Moreover, i t suggests that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l and p a r t y f l u c t u a t e s with the e l e c t o r a l performance of the p a r t y during the p e r i o d under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . For many people, i t i s immediate p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s rather than the s t r e n g t h of the party t i e which determines d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . A consequence of the d i f f e r e n t r a t e s of s t a b i l i t y between p a r t i e s i s that they c o n t r i b u t e to the between panel d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y , observed at the o u t s e t 187 of t h i s chapter (see Table XIX). But to show t h i s i s the case, other p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s of the panel d i f f e r e n c e s must be accounted f o r . One p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the panel d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a b i l i t y r e s u l t from d i f f e r e n c e s between the panels in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i r s t - w a v e p a r t y s t r e n g t h . For example, i f one panel c o n t a i n s a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of strong i d e n t i f i e r s than other panels, then the rate of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y f o r that panel should be higher than the rate f o r the other panels. Table XXIX c o n t a i n s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of party s t r e n g t h for the f i r s t wave of each p a n e l . The d i s t r i b u t i o n s are Table XXIX I n i t i a l Wave Strength of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Panel Panel 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 Strength Strong 25.8% 25.6% 23.7% F a i r l y Strong 43.8 41.0 43.9 Not Very Strong 10.6 12.8 14.0 DK., NA 19.7 20.6 18.4 N=( ) (865) (1353) (1770) c h i sq.=l0.48 d.f.=6 p<.20 almost i d e n t i c a l and upon t e s t i n g , there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e , between the three d i s t r i b u t i o n s . I n t e r - p a n e l d i f f e r e n c e s in the s t a b i l i t y of the d i r e c t i o n component of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n cannot be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n 188 i n i t i a l s t r e n g t h of attachment. Table XXX shows the percent d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e f o r each l e v e l of f i r s t - w a v e i n t e n s i t y f o r each p a n e l . C l e a r l y , the s t r e n g t h of attachment has a powerful e f f e c t on d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . In each p a n e l , d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y with i n c r e a s i n g l e v e l s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . In the three-wave panel f o r example, f u l l y 78% of strong i d e n t i f i e r s compared t o only 33% of respondents who i n d i c a t e no s t r e n g t h of attachment show no change. These data and those from the other panels demonstrate the important e f f e c t of i n t e n s i t y on d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . However, Table XXX a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s that i n t e n s i t y does not account f o r a l l of the v a r i a t i o n i n d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y between panels; s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between panels p e r s i s t w i t h i n each l e v e l of i n t e n s i t y . Strong i d e n t i f i e r s are more s t a b l e between 1979 and 1980 than between 1974 and 1979 or over the three-wave p a n e l . S i m i l a r d i f f e r e n c e s are evident a c r o s s the panels w i t h i n . a l l other c a t e g o r i e s of s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . I f p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h cannot account f o r the between panel d i f f e r e n c e s , perhaps they r e s u l t from nonsystematic change which i s p e r s o n a l i n nature ( i . e . marriage, d i v o r c e , e t c . , ) . The i n c i d e n c e of t h i s type of change should be gr e a t e r over the longer term than the sh o r t e r term. We know from Table XIX that the i n c i d e n c e of i n s t a b i l i t y does i n c r e a s e with the l e n g t h of the panel; consequently, t h i s 189 T a b l e XXX D i r e c t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by  F i r s t - W a v e S t r e n g t h of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Pane l Pane l S t r e n g t h 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 S t r o n g F a i r l y S trong Not Very S trong D K . , NA Pane l mean N=( ) S t a t i s t i c s 78, 65, 42, 33, 59, (865) . (N) % (223) 80.9% (379) 70.5 ( 92) 51.2 ,(170) 47.7 65.9% (1353) W i t h i n P a n e l - A c r o s s S t r e n g t h (N) 5 (346) 90, (555) 80, (172) 65, (279) 45, 74, 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 2% 4 7 4 2% (1770) c h i sq.=97.94 d . f .=3 p<.00l c h i sq.=97.45 d . f . = 3 p<.00l c h i sq.=221.78 d . f .=3 p<.00l CN) (419) (770) (248) (326) W i t h i n S t r e n g t h - A c r o s s Pane l s S trong c h i sq.=20.64 d . f .=2 p<.00l F a i r l y S trong c h i sq.=33.51 d . f .=2 p<.00l Not Very S trong c h i s q . = 1.8.l0 d . f .=2 p<.00l D K . , NA c h i sq.=9.28 d . f .=2 p<.01 Between Pane l s 1974-79-80&1974-79 c h i sq.=21.30 d . f . = 3 p<.00l 1974-79-80&1979-80 c h i s q . = l 0 . 5 2 d . f . = 3 p<.02 1974-79 & 1979-80 c h i sq.=11.35' d . f . = 3 p<.02 190 e x p l a n a t i o n seems to be compatible with the data. Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n however, t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n cannot account f o r a l l of the i n t e r - p a n e l d i f f e r e n c e s in d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y e i t h e r . At l e a s t one other c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i s the d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e of s t a b i l i t y between the p a r t i e s themselves. According to Campbell et a l . , "changes r e s u l t i n g from p u r e l y p e r s o n a l circumstances may be expected to occur about as o f t e n in one p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n as the o t h e r . " 1 1 I f t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n h o l d s , two t h i n g s can be expected. F i r s t , w i t h i n each p a n e l , the i n c i d e n c e of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y should be equal f o r a l l i d e n t i f i e r s i r r e s p e c t i v e of p a r t y because t h i s type of change Is thought to a f f e c t a l l p a r t i e s e q u a l l y . Second, i d e n t i f i e r s of a l l p a r t i e s should e x h i b i t a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r a t e s of s t a b i l i t y between pan e l s . That i s , i d e n t i f i e r s of each p a r t y should be more s t a b l e i n the panel c o v e r i n g the s h o r t e s t p e r i o d of time (the 1979-80 panel) than in the panels which span longer p e r i o d s of t i m e . 1 2 N e i t h e r e x p e c t a t i o n i s met, as a glance back to the data i n Tables XXVII and XXVIII r e v e a l s . With res p e c t to the f i r s t e x p e c t a t i o n , that the i n c i d e n c e of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y w i t h i n each panel i s not equal f o r i d e n t i f i e r s of a l l p a r t i e s , as we have a l r e a d y seen. With respect to the second e x p e c t a t i o n , the i n c i d e n c e of change i s not always gr e a t e r over the longer term than the s h o r t e r term. The 191 exception i s the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a t t e r n . Conservative i d e n t i f i e r s are j u s t as s t a b l e over the f i v e year p e r i o d between 1974 and 1979 as they are over the nine month span covered by the 1979-80 panel. In t h i s i n s t a n c e , there i s no evidence of greater change over the longer term than the s h o r t e r term as one would expect i f change due to personal f a c t o r s i s s o l e l y at work here. The d i f f e r e n t r a t e s of s t a b i l i t y between panels r e s u l t , at l e a s t to some extent, from the d i f f e r e n t rates of s t a b i l i t y between p a r t i e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the s t a b i l i t y r a t e of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s w i l l have a major impact on the s t a b i l i t y rate in any panel because L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s comprise the l a r g e s t s i n g l e group of i d e n t i f i e r s i n the p o p u l a t i o n . That the i n c i d e n c e of i n s t a b i l i t y i s greater i n the 1974-79 panel than i n the 1979-80 panel i s , i n p a r t , due to the f a c t that L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s are much more s t a b l e i n the l a t t e r panel than i n the former. Gross r a t e s of s t a b i l i t y / i n s t a b i l i t y in party i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n a system i n which the party l o y a l t i e s of a s u b s t a n t i a l number of people are responsive t o ' s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s , are a f f e c t e d by d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e s of s t a b i l i t y between p a r t i e s . P a t t e r n s of Change in Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Although the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n allows f o r change in p a r t y attachments, c e r t a i n p a t t e r n s of change should be p r e v a l e n t . If i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a party i s 192 viewed as the opposite of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with another pa r t y with p o l i t i c a l independence f a l l i n g i n between . the" two extremes, then one would expect that movement to the middle p o s i t i o n , independence, should be more l i k e l y than movement to another p a r t y . 1 3 In s p a t i a l terms, movement to another par t y i n v o l v e s t r a v e l l i n g a g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e than does movement to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 " Table XXXI shows the p a t t e r n of movement in p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n f o r the three p a n e l s . I t i s evident that the volume of d i r e c t p a r t y exchange i s high in each panel, e q u a l l i n g the amount of change through movement to or from n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . To put these r e s u l t s i n p e r s p e c t i v e , i t i s u s e f u l to compare them with Howell's a n a l y s i s of p a t t e r n s of change in American party i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 5 In both cases, the volume of change i s s i m i l a r - 36% of the 1972-74-76 American panel r e p o r t e d d i r e c t i o n a l change compared to 39.6% of the 1974-79-80 Canadian p a n e l . Most of the American change i s as expected; 32% of respondents e x h i b i t movement to or from independence while only 4% of the panel move to another p a r t y . The comparable f i g u r e s f o r the Canadian panel are 19.6% to or from n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and 20% to another p a r t y . However, i f the d e s t i n a t i o n of d e f e c t o r s i s determined randomly, by the a v a i l a b i l i t y of p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s in the environment, then movement to another p a r t y should be most common s i n c e there are more i d e n t i f i e r s than n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 193 Table XXXI Pat t e r n s of Change i n Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  1974-79-80, 1974-79, 1979-80 Panels* Panel 1974-79-80 1974-79 1979-80 St a b l e ID 57.5% 59.7% 69. 2% S t a b l e NOID 2.9 6.1 5. 1 Changed through: -Non-ident i f i c a t i o n P,->NOID->P, 3.7 P,->NOID->NOID 2.6 P1->NOID->P2 1 .5 P,->P1->NOID 3.0 NOID->P1->P1 5.0 NOID->P,->NOID 1 .3 P,->NOID 9.5 6. 2 NOID->NOID->P, 2.6 NOID->P, 8.7 7. 0 19.6% 18.2% 13. 2% Conversion -P1->P,->P2 3.6 P 1->P 2->P 3 1 .6 P 1->P 2->P 2 8.4 P 1->P 2->P 1 3.3 P1->P2->NOID 2.2 NOID->P1->P2 0.9 20.0% P,->P 2 15.9% 12. 4% * The p a t t e r n s represent change acr o s s panel waves. Thus, the 1974-79-80 pa n e l , the p a t t e r n P 1->P 1->P 2 i n d i c a t e s those respondents who remained with the same part y in 1974 and 1979 but changed i n 1980. 'ID' = i d e n t i f i e r s ; 'NOID' = n o n - i d e n t i f i e r s . 194 i n the p o p u l a t i o n . When viewed t h i s way, i t i s the case that both American and Canadian p a r t i s a n d e f e c t o r s are more l i k e l y to move to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n than i s p r e d i c t e d by chance alone, and t h i s conforms to t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . But i t i s a l s o the case that the i n c i d e n c e of movement to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n amongst American d e f e c t o r s i s double that of Canadian d e f e c t o r s . In sh o r t , d i r e c t p a r t y exchanges are more common i n t h i s country. The anchoring e f f e c t of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s l e s s p r e v a l e n t i n Canada than i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s . 1 6 Part of the d i f f e r e n c e between the Canadian and U.S. p a t t e r n s may stem from the f a c t that no cue f o r 'independence' i s given i n the Canadian v e r s i o n of the qu e s t i o n tapping the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 1 7 As a r e s u l t , some Canadian respondents may choose a p a r t y response when in f a c t they are not ' p a r t i s a n s ' i n the tr u e sense of the word. I t i s impossible to determine j u s t how t h i s a f f e c t s the c r o s s - n a t i o n a l comparisons, or the p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n s we have uncovered i n the Canadian c a s e . 1 8 At any r a t e , the r e l a t i v e l y high i n c i d e n c e of movement between p a r t i e s i s an i n d i c a t i o n that f o r many people, the response to the p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n probe does not r e f l e c t a long-term t i e to a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y . I n d i v i d u a l and Aggregate Changes The theory of part y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a t t r i b u t e s the 195 s t a b i l i t y of the p a r t y balance to the s t a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y attachments. However, we know that a good number of i n d i v i d u a l s change t h e i r p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n over a f a i r l y b r i e f p e r i o d of time. Does t h i s mean that the aggregate d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a l s o f l u c t u t a t e s over the short-term? Table XXXII shows that change in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of party i d e n t i f i c a t i o n fom one wave of a panel to the next i s at best, small in magnitude. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between the waves of the 1979-80 p a n e l . For the three-wave and 1974-79 panels, the d i f f e r e n c e between waves i s s i g n i f i c a n t but not s i z e a b l e . In both panels, the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e i s due l a r g e l y to s h i f t s i n the r e l a t i v e share of the p o p u l a t i o n h e l d by the two major p a r t i e s . In the three-wave p a n e l , the percent — i d e n t i f y i n g with the L i b e r a l p a r t y drops from 50% i n 1974 to 41% i n 1979, but i n c r e a s e s to 45% in 1980. The corresponding f i g u r e s f o r C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s are 24% i n 1974, 30% i n 1979, and 28% i n 1980. In the 1974-79 panel, the L i b e r a l share drops from 49% i n 1974 to 41% i n 1979. For the C o n s e r v a t i v e s , the corresponding f i g u r e s are 24% in 1974 and 30% i n 1979. These s h i f t s i n v o l v i n g the major p a r t i e s account f o r most of the d i f f e r e n c e between waves of the r e s p e c t i v e p a n e l s . 196 T a b l e XXXII D i s t r i b u t i o n of the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n  for Each Wave of the Pane l s (a) 1974-79-80 Panel Year P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n L i b e r a l C o n s e r v a t i v e NDP S o c i a l C r e d i t / o t h e r N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s T o t a l (N=865) 1 974 50, 23, 9, 3, 12, 1 00, 6% 9 7 1 7 0% .1979 41 .3% 30.0' 12.0 3.4 13.2 99.9% 1980 45.5% 27.8 13.0 1 .4 12.0 99.7% c h i sq .=27 . !8 d . f . = 8 p<.0 1 (b) 1974-79 Pane l P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 1 974 Year 1 979 L i b e r a l 48.5% C o n s e r v a t i v e 23.5 NDP 9.9 S o c i a l C r e d i t / o t h e r 3.3 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 14.8 T o t a l (N=1353) 100.0% 40.8% 29.6 10, 3, 15, 99.9% c h i s q . = l 9 . 8 0 d . f .=4 p<.0l ic) 1979-80 Pane l Year 1979 1980 P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n L i b e r a l 42.0% 44.0% C o n s e r v a t i v e 28.7 27.6 NDP 13.4 14.8 S o c i a l C r e d i t / o t h e r 3.7 2.4 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 12.2 11.2 T o t a l (N=1770) 100.0% 100.0% c h i sq.=8.14 d . f . = 4 p<. 1 0 1 97 These changes are small i n magnitude and do not represent a major a l t e r a t i o n i n the p a r t y balance as i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the f a c t that the r e l a t i v e s t a n d i n g of the p a r t i e s remains constant a c r o s s a l l waves of each of the p a n e l s . When i t i s remembered that 40% of respondents of the three-wave panel, 34% of the 1974-79 panel and 26% of the 1979-80 panel changed t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the small d i f f e r e n c e s between waves in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n pale i n comparison. The f a c t that movement by a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of respondents in each panel i s accompanied by only a small amount of change in the aggregate d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a phenomenon that i s u n a n t i c i p a t e d by the theory. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l and aggregate change can be understood from an examination of the data i n Tables XXXIII and XXXIV. The t a b l e s show the movement between p a r t i e s by i n d i v i d u a l s and the net e f f e c t of t h i s movement on the p a r t y balance f o r the 1974-79 panel and the 1979-80 p a n e l . The data in both t a b l e s show that exchanges between p a r t i e s minimize the net e f f e c t of c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r t i s a n i n s t a b i l i t y . For example, 34% of respondents i n the 1974-79 panel report a d i f f e r e n t p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n the two waves of the panel, yet the t o t a l net change i s only 8% i n the standing of the p a r t i e s between 1974 and 1979. ( T o t a l net change i s obtained by adding the a b s o l u t e value of the 1 98 T a b l e XXXIII  Summary of T u r n o v e r in the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the 1974-79 Pane l L o s s e s To % of Pane l (N) L i b e r a l Ga ins From % of Pane l (N) PC 6 .2% (84) 1.5%, (20 NDP 2 .4% (33) 1 .2% (16 S C / o t h e r 0 .6% ( 8) 0.5% ( 7 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 5 . 5% (74) 3.8% (52 T o t a l 1 4 .7% (199) 7.0% (95 PC L i b e r a l 1 .4% (20) 6.2% (84 NDP 1 . 0% (14) 1 .3% ( 1 7 S C / o t h e r 0 .4% ( 5) 0.5% ( 7 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 2 . 3% (31) 3.3% (44 T o t a l 5 . 1% (70) 11.3% (152 NDP L i b e r a l 1 . 2% (16) 2.4% (33 PC 1 . 3% (17) 1 .0% (14 S C / o t h e r 0 .2% ( 3) 0.1% ( 1 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 0 . 8% (11) 1.0% ( 1 4 T o t a l 3 . 5% (47) 4.5% (62 S C / o t h e r s L i b e r a l 0 . 5% ( 7) 0.6% ( 8 PC 0 . 5% ( 7) 0.4% ( 5 NDP 0 . 1% ( 1) 0.2% ( 3 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 1 . 0% (13) 0.6% ( 8 T o t a l 2 . 1% (28) 1 .8% (24 N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s L i b e r a l 3 .8% (52) 5.5% (74 PC 3 . 3% (44) 2.3% (31 NDP 1 .0% (14) 0.8% ( 1 1 S C / o t h e r 0 . 6% ( 8) 1 .0% ( 13 T o t a l 8 .7% (118) 9.6% (129 T o t a l p a n e l change = 34.1% T o t a l net change =8.0% Net Change -7.7% (104) +6.2% ( 82) + 1 .0% ( 15) -0.3% ( 4) +0.9% ( 11) 199 T a b l e XXXIV  Turnover i n the D i r e c t i o n of P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n in the 1979-80 Pane l  Losses To Gains From % of Pane l (N) % of Pane l (N) L i b e r a l PC 2.3% NDP 1.5% S C / o t h e r 0.4% N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 2.0% T o t a l 6.2% ( PC L i b e r a l 2.9% NDP 1.5% S C / o t h e r 0.1% N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 2.1% T o t a l 6.6% ( NDP L i b e r a l 1.0% PC 0.6% S C / o t h e r 0.3% N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 1.2% T o t a l 3.1% S C / o t h e r s L i b e r a l 1.0% PC 0.2% NDP 0.5% N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s 0.9% T o t a l 2.6% N o n - i d e n t i f i e r s L i b e r a l 3.3% PC 2.4% NDP 1.0% S C / o t h e r 0.3% T o t a l 7.0% ( 41) 2.9% (51 27) 1.0% (18 7) 1.0% (17 35) 3.3% (59 10) 8.2% (145 51) 2.3% (41 27) 0.6% (10 2) 0.2% ( 4 37) 2.4% (42 17) 5.5% (97 18) 1.5% (27 10) 1.5% (27 5) 0.5% ( 9 22) 1.0% (17 55) 4.5% (80 17) 0.3% ( 7 4) 0.1% ( 2 9) 0.3% ( 5 16) 0.3% ( 6 46) 1.0% (20 59) 2.0% (35 42) 2.1% (37 17) 1.2% (22 6) 0.9% (16 24) 6.2% (110 T o t a l pane l change = 25.5% T o t a l net change = 3.5% Net  Change +2.0% ( 35) -1.1% ( 2 0) +1.4% ( 25) -1.6% ( 26) -0.8% ( 14) 200 net change f o r each par t y and d i v i d i n g by 2.) S i m i l a r r e s u l t s are evident i n the turnover of party i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n the 1979-80 panel. There, movement by 25.5% of the panel produced a net change of only 3.5% i n the standing of the p a r t i e s between 1979 and 1980. Movement between the p a r t i e s l a r g e l y tends to be o f f s e t t i n g , thereby minimizing the net e f f e c t of a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of i n d i v i d u a l movement. The t a b l e s a l s o show that the net e f f e c t of the movement f o r each p a r t y f o l l o w s the e l e c t o r a l showing of the p a r t y . The L i b e r a l s won the 1974 e l e c t i o n but l o s t i n 1979. Over that time, 14.7% of the panel abandoned the L i b e r a l p a r t y and moved to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with another p a r t y or to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . At the same time, 7% of the panel moved to the L i b e r a l s from i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with another pa r t y or from n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The net e f f e c t of t h i s movement was a l o s s of 7.7% in the p r o p o r t i o n of the panel i d e n t i f y i n g with the L i b e r a l p a r t y i n 1979 compared to 1974. S i m i l a r l y the improved aggregate standing of the Co n s e r v a t i v e party of 6.2% i n 1979 compared to 1974 r e s u l t e d from a gain of 11.3% and a l o s s of 5.1% of panel respondents. Moreover, the process of exchange occurs i r r e s p e c t i v e of the p a r t y ' s e l e c t o r a l showing. P a r t i e s do not simply gain and l o s e nothing or c o n v e r s e l y , gain nothing and only l o s e . When a part y does w e l l e l e c t o r a l l y , i t s t i l l l o s e s some of i t s i d e n t i f i e r s . On the other hand, when a part y 201 does p o o r l y at the p o l l s , i t s t i l l gains some new i d e n t i f i e r s . In t h i s r e s p e c t , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s seem to move much l i k e the vote. But the e f f e c t of these exchanges i s to minimize c o n s i d e r a b l e i n d i v i d u a l movement. CONCLUSIONS T h i s chapter has examined p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . While some r e s u l t s lend support to the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , most of the f i n d i n g s pose problems f o r the theory, e i t h e r because they run c o n t r a r y to i t or because they r e v e a l the presence of s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s which are u n a n t i c i p a t e d by the theory. The extent of change on both components of part y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l e . While a good p a r t of t h i s i s due to movement i n i n t e n s i t y , a s i z e a b l e p o r t i o n i s the product of d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y . In no panel, however, d i d a m a j o r i t y of respondents r e p o r t d i r e c t i o n a l change. Change i s common but not p e r v a s i v e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between age, d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y , and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i s as t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected. On average, s t a b l e p a r t i s a n s hold stronger attachments than un s t a b l e p a r t i s a n s i n both i n i t i a l and subsequent panel waves. A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and age i s present f o r s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s , a s i s an i n c r e a s e i n p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y over time. The key 202 d e t e r m i n a n t of p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y i s d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . A change i n p a r t y d i r e c t i o n a l w a y s r e s u l t s i n a d e c r e a s e i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . W i t h r e s p e c t t o d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y and age, o l d e r r e s p o n d e n t s a r e more s t a b l e t h a n y o u n g e r r e s p o n d e n t s , a l t h o u g h not s u b s t a n t i a l l y s o . However, age d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y p e r s i s t a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e e f f e c t s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . F u r t h e r m o r e , w i t h i n some age c a t e g o r i e s , t h e e x p e c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r e n g t h and d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y i s not p r e s e n t . T h e s e l a t t e r r e s u l t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e x p e c t a t i o n s and i n d i c a t e t h a t f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h have an e f f e c t on d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . •One f a c t o r i s p a r t y i t s e l f . D i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s by p a r t y i r r e s p e c t i v e of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s s e n s i t i v e t o s h o r t - r u n p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s . I n s t a b i l i t y i s g r e a t e r f o r i d e n t i f i e r s of some p a r t i e s t h a n o t h e r s b e c a u s e s h o r t - r u n f o r c e s do not a f f e c t a l l p a r t i e s e q u a l l y . M o r e o v e r , t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e of s t a b i l i t y by p a r t y has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e e x t e n t of change i n t h e p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m o v e r t i m e . The volume o f change w i l l depend on t h e v a l e n c e of s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s . A g r e a t e r amount of change i n t h e s y s t e m can be e x p e c t e d when s h o r t - t e r m f o r c e s work a g a i n s t p a r t i e s w i t h a l a r g e number o f i d e n t i f i e r s t h a n when t h e y work a g a i n s t p a r t i e s w i t h a 203 s m a l l e r base of s u p p o r t . Thus s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s a f f e c t b o t h t h e s t a b i l i t y o f i d e n t i f i e r s w i t h e a c h p a r t y as w e l l as t h e amount o f s t a b i l i t y i n t h e p a r t y s y s t e m as a whole. An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a t t e r n s of change i n p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t movement between p a r t i e s i s as p r e v a l e n t as movement t o n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A good number of p e o p l e move between p a r t i e s r o u t i n e l y and e a s i l y . T h i s i s a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p a r t y t i e has a s h o r t - t e r m q u a l i t y t o i t . F i n a l l y , d e s p i t e c o n s i d e r a b l e movement i n i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s , movement a t t h e a g g r e g a t e l e v e l i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l i n m a g n i t u d e . A g g r e g a t e s t a b i l i t y does not depend on i n d i v i d u a l s t a b i l i t y ; r a t h e r , a g g r e g a t e s t a b i l i t y and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t a b i l i t y a r e c o m p a t i b l e p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e movement between p a r t i e s t e n d s t o be o f f s e t t i n g . T hus, t h e p r e s e n c e of a l a r g e number of c i t i z e n s who s h i f t t h e i r p a r t i s a n o r i e n t a t i o n s f a i r l y r o u t i n e l y does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t t h e p a r t y s y s t e m as a whole i s p a r t i c u l a r l y v o l a t i l e . Of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r , o n l y t h a t s howing an i n c r e a s e i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h w i t h t i m e and p a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y comes down on t h e s i d e o f t h e t h e o r y . A l l o t h e r a n a l y s e s y i e l d r e s u l t s w h i c h a r e i n some way a t 204 odds w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . The g e n e r a l d i s c r e p a n c y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t h e o r y i s t h e f a i l u r e of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h t o a c c o u n t a d e q u a t e l y f o r d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y / i n s t a b i l i t y . T h i s i s c l e a r l y e v i d e n t w i t h i n some age c a t e g o r i e s and w i t h i n some p a r t i e s . T h a t d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y s h o u l d v a r y w i t h s t r e n g t h of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a c o r n e r s t o n e of t h e t h e o r y and t h e f a i l u r e t o f i n d t h i s p a t t e r n i n a l l i n s t a n c e s marks a s e r i o u s s t r i k e a g a i n s t i t . S h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e s t a b i l i t y of t h e p a r t y t i e . The f a c t t h a t d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y v a r i e s by p a r t y i r r e s p e c t i v e of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h b o t h w i t h i n p a n e l s and between p a n e l s , i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s . The h i g h i n c i d e n c e of movement between p a r t i e s i s f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e of t h e s h o r t - t e r m q u a l i t y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F o r many p e o p l e , t h e d i r e c t i o n o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d by immediate p o l i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h i s r u n s c o n t r a r y t o t h e t h e o r y . M o r e o v e r , t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g a s h o r t - t e r m q u a l i t y t o p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h o s e p a n e l r e s p o n d e n t s who r e p o r t no p a r t i s a n c hange. The a b s e n c e of change may be due t o t h e a n c h o r i n g e f f e c t o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , b u t i t may a l s o i n d i c a t e t h e work of s h o r t - t e r m f o r c e s . I f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s an a s s e s s m e n t of s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t s u c h a s s e s m e n t s c o u l d r e s u l t i n i d e n t i c a l outcomes a t d i f f e r e n t 205 p o i n t s i n t i m e . T h i s warns a g a i n s t t h e e a s y a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a l l n o n c h a n g e r s a r e p a r t y i d e n t i f i e r s . W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a g g r e g a t e v e r s i o n of t h e t h e o r y , t h i s a n a l y s i s d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t a g g r e g a t e s t a b i l i t y and a c o n s i d e r a b l e volume o f i n d i v i d u a l i n s t a b i l i t y a r e c o m p a t i b l e . A g g r e g a t e s t a b i l i t y d o e s not r e q u i r e t h a t most members of t h e e l e c t o r a t e h o l d s t a b l e p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s as i m p l i e d by t h e t h e o r y . Taken t o g e t h e r , t h e a n a l y s e s i n t h i s c h a p t e r o f f e r f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e weakness of t h e t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s c o u n t r y . Some r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t h e o r y , b ut most work a g a i n s t i t . 206 Footnotes 1. 'Leaners' are t r e a t e d as i d e n t i f i e r s in t h i s and a l l other analyses unless otherwise noted. To be c l a s s i f i e d as d i r e c t i o n a l l y s t a b l e , respondents must give the same response to the p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n probe i n each panel wave. 2. T h i s measure of s t r e n g t h i n c l u d e s a l l panel respondents and thus i n c l u d e s respondents who gave responses of 'don't know' or 'refused' or who were c l a s s i f i e d as m i s s i n g because they d i d not give a p a r t y response to the q u e s t i o n probing the d i r e c t i o n of party i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 3. Leduc et a l . r e p o r t s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s of p a r t i s a n s h i p i n Canada. See Lawrence Leduc, Harold C l a r k e , Jane Jenson and Jon Pammett, " P a r t i s a n I n s t a b i l i t y i n Canada: Evidence from a New Panel Study," American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, (June, 1984), p. 482. * 4. Angus Campbell et a l . , The American Vo t e r , (abridged . . e d i t i o n ) p. 88. See a l s o Herbert McClosky and Harold E. Dahlgren, "Primary Group I n f l u e n c e on Party L o y a l t y , " American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, (Sept., 1959), p. 757-776. 5. The scores f o r the 1974 wave are the average of a 3 category i n t e n s i t y s c a l e where 1 = 'not very s t r o n g l y ' , 2 = ' f a i r l y s t r o n g l y ' , and 3 = 'very s t r o n g l y ' . The 1979 and 1980 are the average of a 0-4 i n t e n s i t y s c a l e . T h i s allows f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some 1974 i d e n t i f i e r s do not f a l l i n any of the three c a t e g o r i e s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h i n the 1979 and/or 1980 waves because they e i t h e r moved to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , r e f u s e d to answer, or were coded as m i s s i n g . These respondents are coded 0 i n 1979 and 1980. The allowance was made f o r both s t a b l e and unstable i d e n t i f i e r s . T h i s procedure w i l l lower the 1979 and 1980 i n t e n s i t y scores f o r both groups of 1974 i d e n t i f i e r s . 6. Johnston r e p o r t s that "a year of age i n c r e a s e s the p r o b a b i l i t y of. f e e l i n g 'very c l o s e ' to a party by between t h r e e - t e n t h s and f o u r - t e n t h s of one percentage p o i n t . " R i c h a r d Johnston, " P o l i t i c a l Generations and E l e c t o r a l M o b i l i z a t i o n i n Canada," Paper prepared f o r the Conference on Generations and P o l i t i c a l Change, Quebec C i t y , June, 1986, p. 3. 207 7. According to Cook and Campbell, r e g r e s s i o n "does not a f f e c t change scores at the center of the p r e t e s t d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n c e the group i s l i k e l y to c o n t a i n as many u n i t s whose p r e t e s t scores are i n f l a t e d by e r r o r as u n i t s whose p r e t e s t scores are d e f l a t e d by i t . " Thomas D. Cook and Donald T. Campbell, Quasi-Experindentation: Design and A n a l y s i s Issues f o r  F i e l d S e t t i n g s , (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979), p. 52-53. 8. Very s i m i l a r r e s u l t s are obtained from an i d e n t i c a l a n a l y s i s using data from the other panels. 9. Johston r e p o r t s a t h r e e - t e n t h s of a percentage p o i n t r e d u c t i o n i n d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y per year of age i n the 1974-79 p a n e l . Richard Johnston, " P o l i t i c a l Generations", op. c i t . , p. 3. 10. Angus Campbell et a l . , The American Voter, (New York: John Wiley, 1960) , p. 161 . 11. I b i d . , p 150-151 . 12. One must be c a r e f u l on t h i s dimension. In f a c t , other f a c t o r s , such as the 'homing tendency', suggest that the e f f e c t of time on turnover may not be l i n e a r . See David B u t l e r and Donald E. Stokes, P o l i t i c a l Change i n  B r i t a i n , (London: MacMillan, 1969"5~ p. 295-6; and P h i l i p E. Converse, "Survey Research and Decoding P a t t e r n s i n Data", i n M a t t e i Dogan and S t e i n Rokkan, (eds), Q u a n t i t a t i v e E c o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s i n the S o c i a l  S c i e n c e s , (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969), p. 459-486. 13. Weisberg suggests that t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n may not ho l d . See Herbert F. Weisberg, "A M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " i n Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, (eds.), C o n t r o v e r s i e s  in V o t i n g Behaviour, (Washington: C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , 1984), p. 459. 14. Richard S. Katz, "The D i m e n s i o n a l i t y of Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : C r o s s - N a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e , " Comparitive P o l i c i e s , (January, 1979), p. 149.. 15. Susan E. Howell, "The Be h a v i o u r a l Component of Changing P a r t i s a n s h i p , " American P o l i t i c s Q u a r t e r l y , ( J u l y , 1980), p. 284. 16. In c a l c u l a t i o n s based on the f i r s t wave of the 1972-74-76 American panel and on the f i r s t wave of the 1974-79-80 panel, where 'le a n e r s ' are t r e a t e d as 208 i d e n t i f i e r s , the expected percentage of d e f e c t o r s to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s about 24% i n both c o u n t r i e s . But the observed i n c i d e n c e of movement to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s 76% of American d e f e c t o r s and 50% of Canadian d e f e c t o r s . Movement to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s g r e a t e r than expected i n both c o u n t r i e s . But the overage i n the U.S. i s 76%-24% or 52%, while i n Canada i t i s 50%-24% or 26%. C l e a r l y the tendency to move to n o n - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s g r e a t e r i n the U.S. than in Canada. 17. R i c h a r d Johnston, "Problems i n the C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Comparison of Mass P a r t i s a n s h i p , " Paper prepared f o r the Midwest P o l i t i c a l Science A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1986. 18. Adding a cue f o r independence to the p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n may not a l t e r the outcome to any great e x t e n t . B u t l e r and Stokes r e p o r t that when B r i t i s h e l e c t o r s were given an e x p l i c i t prompt fo r independence, only 3 per cent chose that response. David B u t l e r and Donald E. Stokes, P o l i t i c a l Change in  B r i t a i n , (London: MacMillan, 1969), p. 43. 209 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS The a i m o f t h i s e n q u i r y h a s been t o a s s e s s t h e u t i l i t y o f t h e t h e o r y o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n Canada t h r o u g h a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e c o n c e p t w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a s o b s e r v e d i n t h i s c o u n t r y . T h e r e i s n o t a good f i t b e t w e e n t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e t h e o r y a n d t h e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e t h e o r y c a n n o t e x p l a i n s t a b i l i t y a n d c h a n g e i n t h e C a n a d i a n p a r t y s y s t e m . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e t h e o r y ' s a b i l i t y t o e x p l a i n t h e p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o r o f i n d i v i d u a l s i s a l s o l i m i t e d . To u n d e r s t a n d t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s , t h e e v i d e n c e must be c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t o f t h e a r g u m e n t s made by t h e t h e o r y . A f t e r s h o w i n g why t h e t h e o r y c a n n o t e x p l a i n s t a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r t y s y s t e m , i t i s a r g u e d t h a t t h e a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t r e s u l t s f o r b o t h t h e s t r e n g t h a n d d i r e c t i o n o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a r e i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n t e r m s o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e p a r t y . F o l l o w i n g t h a t , t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e u s e o f t h e t h e o r y a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l i s a d d r e s s e d . 210 THE THEORY OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION AND THE CANADIAN PARTY SYSTEM The theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has the p o t e n t i a l to account for s t a b i l i t y and change i n the p a r t y system over t ime . The t h e o r y ' s use at t h i s l e v e l of a n a l y s i s depends on three assumptions wi th r e s p e c t to mass p a r t y l o y a l t i e s - that s y s t e m a t i c ga ins i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h occur over the l i f e c y c l e ; tha t the i n i t i a l p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e s of i n d i v i d u a l s (or c o h o r t s of i n d i v i d u a l s ) remain s t a b l e over t i m e , making the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in the system over time a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r ; and (a) that p a r t y system s t a b i l i t y over the s h o r t - t e r m can be e x p l a i n e d by the s t a b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i s a n t i e s , (b) tha t the s t a b i l i t y of the p a r t y system over the l o n g - t e r m can be e x p l a i n e d by the s t a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e s of those in the e l e c t o r a t e and on the s u c c e s s f u l r e p r o d u c t i o n of the e s t a b l i s h e d e l e c t o r a t e ' s p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e s i n incoming c o h o r t s of new v o t e r s , and (c) , that l o n g - t e r m change in the p a r t y system r e s u l t s from the u n s u c c e s s f u l t r a n s m i s s i o n of e s t a b l i s h e d e l e c t o r a t e ' s p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e s a c r o s s g e n e r a t i o n s . Of these a s sumpt ions , the f i r s t serves as the b a s i s f or the other two. 21 1 I f i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t s y s t e m a t i c g a i n s i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h o v e r t h e l i f e c y c l e a r e a g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s of t h e C a n a d i a n e l e c t o r a t e , i t p r o v i d e s s u p p o r t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g c r u c i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e t h e o r y o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n : 1) t h a t t h e p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s of most p e o p l e grow s t r o n g e r o v e r t i m e , t h r o u g h t h e i r r e p e a t e d use; 2) t h a t t h e l i k e l i h o o d of d i r e c t i o n a l change d e c r e a s e s o v e r t h e l i f e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e o l d e s t segment o f t h e e l e c t o r a t e i s composed l a r g e l y of e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t y s u p p o r t e r s ; 3) t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l ' s ( o r c o h o r t ' s ) i n i t i a l p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e s a r e p r e s e r v e d o v e r t i m e ; and c o n s e q u e n t l y 4) t h a t p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n i s a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r . The p r e s u m p t i o n o f l i f e c y c l e g a i n s i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i s of t h e t h e o r y ' s a b i l i t y t o a c c o u n t f o r p a r t y s y s t e m s t a b i l i t y and c h a n g e . In l i g h t of t h i s , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h on t h e i r 'own d e a l a s e r i o u s blow t o t h e use o f t h e t h e o r y as t h e b a s i s f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e C a n a d i a n p a r t y s y s t e m o v e r t i m e . The a n a l y s i s f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t m a j o r g a i n s i n p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h o v e r - t h e l i f e c y c l e a r e a g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i n Canada. In t h e a n a l y s i s of a l l i d e n t i f i e r s , t h e e x p e c t e d p a t t e r n was d e t e c t a b l e but t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e i n c r e a s e was n o t l a r g e . The w i t h i n - p a r t y a n a l y s e s f a i l e d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s 212 m i s e r a b l y . Only for L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s was the expected a g e - s t r e n g t h r e l a t i o n s h i p p r e s e n t , and then in very weak form. For C o n s e r v a t i v e and NDP i d e n t i f i e r s , g e n e r a t i o n ( cohor t ) p r o v i d e s the a p p r o p r i a t e e x p l a n a t i o n of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h , a l l e l s e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l ; age ( l i f e c y c l e ) has no e f f e c t at a l l . In the most obv ious way, these r e s u l t s warn a g a i n s t the use of the t h e o r y . P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s do not always grow s t r o n g e r over t ime , and where they do , they do not i n c r e a s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y in magnitude. T h i s means t h a t a l l a s p e c t s of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n must be t r e a t e d wi th s u s p i c i o n because they r e l y on the presence Of sy s t emat i c i n c r e a s e s on p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h over t ime . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t i s not safe to assume that i n i t i a l p a r t i s a n t e n d e n c i e s w i l l be conserved over time by the s t r e n g t h e n i n g of the p a r t y t i e , or that the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r , or that the o l d e r p o r t i o n of the e l e c t o r a t e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y p a r t i s a n to i n f l u e n c e the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t i s a n s h i p of emerging g e n e r a t i o n s of v o t e r s , or that the o l d e r p o r t i o n of the e l e c t o r a t e i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s l i k e l y to change t h e i r p a r t y t i e than the young. The i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of the p a r t y t i e over t ime i s the c o r n e r s t o n e which j u s t i f i e s the use of the t h e o r y . The f a i l u r e to f i n d s t r o n g ev idence of t h i s tendency i n d i c a t e s the t h e o r y ' s use i n Canada i s l i m i t e d . 213 The pane l ev idence goes a long way in i n f o r m i n g us as to why s y s t e m a t i c i n c r e a s e s in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h are not p r e s e n t i n the d a t a . I t i s not. because p a r t i s a n attachments do not grow s t r o n g e r over t i m e . They do i n c r e a s e but only under the c o n d i t i o n of d i r e c t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . For u n s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s , n e i t h e r a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h nor ga ins i n i n t e n s i t y over time are presen t i n the a n a l y s i s . Moreover , a change in p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n depresses p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h d r a m a t i c a l l y . These r e s u l t s s t r o n g l y imply tha t d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y i s s u f f i c i e n t l y commmon i n the Canadian e l e c t o r a t e to dampen the ga ins in p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y made through the repeated use of the p a r t y t i e over t i m e . I t i s f o r t h i s reason that ev idence of s y s t e m a t i c age ga ins in p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h are not prominent in the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s . T h i s suggests tha t whatever the ga ins in p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y , they are not of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to anchor the p a r t y a t tachments of many C a n a d i a n s . The f i r s t major premise of the theory does not h o l d . Turn now to the second assumption - that the d i r e c t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r . Given the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the weakness of ga ins i n p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y , i t comes as no s u r p r i s e that the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s of p a r t y d i r e c t i o n f a i l s to o f f e r much ev idence in support of the c o h o r t argument. However, ev idence of d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y was p r e s e n t for i d e n t i f i e r s w i t h each of the 214 major p a r t i e s . S i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d e f f e c t s were p r e s e n t in a l l a n a l y s e s , i n d i c a t i n g s m a l l net s h i f t s from one e l e c t i o n to the next in the p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n c l a i m i n g an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th each of the p a r t i e s . I n s t a b i l i t y i s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d in the p a t t e r n a c r o s s c o h o r t s . Of a l l the p a r t i e s , the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g wi th the C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y shou l d have v a r i e d g e n e r a t i o n a l l y g i v e n the h i s t o r y of the p a r t y . That i t does n o t , r e p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s mark a g a i n s t the t h e o r y . The p a t t e r n of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a c r o s s c o h o r t s i s ambiguous; i t may i n d i c a t e support for the theory or i t may be another r e f l e c t i o n of d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y . The p a t t e r n of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n across c o h o r t s can be i n t e r p r e t e d in terms of the t h e o r y , a l though the accompanying p e r i o d e f f e c t s warn a g a i n s t t h i s . These r e s u l t s make i t very d i f f i c u l t to t r e a t p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a c o h o r t m a t t e r . Moreover , they mean that l o h g - t e r m s t a b i l i t y and change in the p a r t y ba lance cannot be e x p l a i n e d in terms of the success or f a i l u r e of new g e n e r a t i o n s to r e p l i c a t e the e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t i s a n s h i p . The d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y that i s i m p l i e d by the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s i s i s c l e a r l y presen t i n the panel d a t a . The extent of d i r e c t i o n a l change i n each of the p a n e l s i s s u b s t a n t i a l . Immediate p a r t y f o r t u n e s bear on the s t a b i l i t y of p a r t y t i e s , and do so i r r e s p e c t i v e of the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . D i r e c t movement to 215 another p a r t y i s common, i n d i c a t i n g that for many p e o p l e , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has a s h o r t - t e r m q u a l i t y . In s h o r t , the pane l data t e l l the same s t o r y as the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t , a n a l y s i s - that d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y i s a common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Canadian p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . The t h i r d assumpt ion of the t h e o r y i s tha t p a r t y system s t a b i l i t y depends on the s t a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y a t tachments . We know from the p a n e l a n a l y s i s tha t t h i s i s not t r u e . Whi le the ex tent of i n d i v i d u a l i n s t a b i l i t y i s s u b s t a n t i a l , the e f f e c t of that movement on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n from one survey wave to the next i s very s m a l l . The reason i s that d i r e c t i o n a l change takes the form of o f f s e t t i n g exchanges between p a r t i e s which r e s u l t in s m a l l net s h i f t s i n p a r t y support from one e l e c t i o n to the n e x t . 1 T h i s g i v e s the appearance of s t a b i l i t y , s i n c e the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v a r i e s l i t t l e a c r o s s t i m e . But in f a c t , i t c o n c e a l s c o n s i d e r a b l e i n d i v i d u a l i n s t a b i l i t y . F u r t h e r m o r e , the magnitude of the s h i f t s are s i m i l i a r in both the p a n e l and c o h o r t a n a l y s e s , s t r o n g l y i m p l y i n g that the p a t t e r n of o f f s e t t i n g exchanges between p a r t i e s i s not p e c u l i a r to the 1974-1980 p a n e l , but i s a l o n g - s t a n d i n g f e a t u r e of the Canadian p a r t y system. Moreover , t h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th the f a i l u r e to f i n d s t rong ev idence of g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n p a r t i s a n d i r e c t i o n and the f a i l u r e to uncover much ev idence of a g e - g a i n s in p a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y . 216 The t h e o r y ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of p a r t y system s t a b i l i t y assumes i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i s a n s t a b i l i t y . There i s no th ing wrong w i t h t h i s a s sumpt ion; i f most i n d i v i d u a l s h o l d a s t a b l e o r i e n t a t i o n to a p a r t y then the system w i l l be s t a b l e over t i m e . However, the theory i m p l i e s that the absence of widespread s t a b l e at tachments to p a r t i e s means the p a r t y system w i l l be ex tremely v o l a t i l e . C l e a r l y t h i s i s not the case i n the s h o r t - t e r m o r , i f our s u s p i c i o n s are a c c u r a t e wi th r e s p e c t to the d u r a t i o n of the presence of the process of exchange, over the l o n g - t e r m . The theory i s g u i l t y of the c o m p o s i t i o n a l f a l l a c y . 2 I t f a i l s to r e c o g n i z e that system s t a b i l i t y can be e x p l a i n e d in o t h e r ways than by i n d i v i d u a l s t a b i l i t y . The fundamental assumpt ions which p r o v i d e the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the use of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to e x p l a i n p a r t y system change and s t a b i l i t y are not s u s t a i n e d e m p i r i c a l l y . P a r t i s a n i n t e n s i t y does not g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e w i t h age, p a r t y d i r e c t i o n i s not always a c o h o r t - r e l a t e d m a t t e r , and system s t a b i l i t y does not depend on the s t a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l p a r t y a t t a c h m e n t s . While o ther a s p e c t s of the t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may a p p l y i n Canada, t h i s c e n t r a l a spec t of the t h e o r y i s not s u s t a i n e d . 217 AN EXPLANATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE AGE-PERIOD-COHORT ANALYSES OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION In the p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s e s , the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t r e s u l t s were examined p r i m a r i l y in terms of whether or not they were c o n s i s t e n t w i th e x p e c t a t i o n s d e r i v e d from the t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A l t h o u g h i t i s c l e a r that they are n o t , unanswered q u e s t i o n s r e m a i n . Why, for example, i s p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h r e l a t e d to g e n e r a t i o n for C o n s e r v a t i v e and NDP i d e n t i f i e r s and to age for L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s ? Why does i d e n t i f i c a t i o n wi th the NDP vary g e n e r a t i o n a l l y whi le L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s do not? More g e n e r a l l y , why do we f i n d d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the demographic v a r i a b l e s for i d e n t i f i e r s of the d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s ? In the pane l a n a l y s i s , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was shown to v a r y over the s h o r t - t e r m , and t h i s was i n t e r p r e t e d as a response to the performance of the p a r t y . We w i l l argue tha t the h i s t o r i c a l performance of the p a r t i e s a l s o a f f e c t s p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and that "the r e s u l t s of " the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s e s are u n d e r s t a n d a b l e when c o n s i d e r e d in t h i s l i g h t . . 218 Begin by r e c o n s i d e r i n g the t h e o r y . At the r o o t of the t h e o r y of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e f e r e n c e group t h e o r y . I t i s "the a t t r a c t i n g or r e p e l l i n g q u a l i t y of the group that i s the g e n e r a l i z e d d imens ion most c r i t i c a l in d e f i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l - group r e l a t i o n s h i p . " 3 But the t h e o r e t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n emphasizes o n l y the a t t r a c t i n g q u a l i t y of p a r t y . For example, "(O)nce a person has a c q u i r e d some embryonic p a r t y a t tachment , i t i s easy for him to d i s c o v e r tha t most events in the ambiguous wor ld of p o l i t i c s redound to the c r e d i t of h i s chosen p a r t y . " " F u r t h e r , w h i l e p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may change in response to the flow of p o l i t i c a l e v e n t s , " t y p i c a l l y , p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s not on ly s u s t a i n e d but s t rengthened by the p a s s i n g show of p o l i t i c a l a c t s and a c t o r s . " 5 What i s c u r i o u s about t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s that p o l i t i c s and the performance of the p a r t y i n the p o l i t i c a l arena are t y p i c a l l y not important f a c t o r s i n the development of the p a r t y t i e . Most p o l i t i c a l events do not a f f e c t p a r t i s a n deve lopment . F u r t h e r , the p a r t y i s t r e a t e d as a c o n s t a n t ; that i s , as a c o n t i n u o u s l y a t t r a c t i v e o b j e c t in the p o l i t i c a l w o r l d . Once the i n d i v i d u a l i s pushed toward that, o b j e c t by the s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s i n h i s env ironment , he encounters something p o s i t i v e and i s drawn to i t even more, a l l o w i n g the p a r t y t i e to i n c r e a s e i n i n t e n s i t y . T h i s view may not always be a c c u r a t e . P a r t y f o r t u n e s r i s e and f a l l and so might the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of the p a r t y . 219 The i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the party may be a f f e c t e d by the performance of the part y and i t s spokespeople. The pa r t y may appear more or l e s s a t t r a c t i v e or not a t t r a c t i v e at a l l at d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n time depending on i t s performance, both i n the short and long term. For example, what i f the young i n d i v i d u a l , p o s s e s s i n g the germ of a party t i e , looked at the p o l i t i c a l world and found that most events d i d not redound to the c r e d i t of h i s chosen p a r t y ? What i f the young i d e n t i f i e r found the party only m a r g i n a l l y a t t r a c t i v e or even u n a t t r a c t i v e ? In t h i s i n s t a n c e , might not the i n i t i a l p a r t y preference f a i l t o develop or even f a l l by the wayside? Or c o n v e r s e l y , i f the pa r t y i s performing w e l l , should t h i s not make the p a r t y appear more a t t r a c t i v e and thereby f a c i l i t a t e the development of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n i t i a l p a r t i s a n tendency? I t seems reasonable that the behavior of the part y w i l l have an a f f e c t on the way i t i s p e r c e i v e d by the e l e c t o r a t e and in turn on the development of p a r t i s a n d i s p o s i t i o n s . Consider the evidence. D e f e c t i o n s from the Conservative p a r t y i n the 1935 e l e c t i o n were massive. T h i s can be the only e x p l a n a t i o n of the absence of g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g with the p a r t y . There i s no t r a c e of the g r e a t e r support given to the part y i n e l e c t i o n s before 1935. However, those who remained with the p a r t y were i t s s t r o n g e s t supporters. Evidence of t h i s i s c l e a r i n the 220 cohort p a t t e r n of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h of C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s . C o n s e r v a t i v e i d e n t i f i e r s who had entered the e l e c t o r a t e before the 1935 e l e c t i o n are the p a r t y ' s s t r o n g e s t i d e n t i f i e r s . Those who entered a f t e r that date h o l d c o n s i d e r a b l y weaker t i e s with the p a r t y . I suspect that p a r t of t h i s weakness in p a r t y s t r e n g t h must r e f l e c t the poor performance of the p a r t y a f t e r 1935. Not u n t i l 1957 d i d the p a r t y win another e l e c t i o n . A f t e r 1935, those new v o t e r s who were pushed toward the p a r t y by s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s had to contend with a p a r t y that c o n t i n u o u s l y l o s t e l e c t i o n s . The weakness of p a r t y t i e s among these c o h o r t s i s in part a t t r i b u t a b l e to the poor e l e c t o r a l performance of the' p a r t y . Party a l s o e x p l a i n s the age-period-cohort r e s u l t s for NDP i d e n t i f i e r s . The forerunner of the NDP, the CCF, became a p l a y e r i n the p o l i t i c a l game at the time of the Great D e p r e s s i o n . While there i s no evidence of a high volume of permanent movement to the p a r t y i n the cohort p a t t e r n of the d i r e c t i o n of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , the g e n e r a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n the s t r e n g t h of NDP i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i n d i c a t e s that those who d i d move to the p a r t y remain i t s s t r o n g e s t supporters. The nature of the times combined with the p a r t y ' s p o r t r a y a l of i t s e l f as an a l t e r n a t i v e to the s t a t u s quo p a r t i e s , made the p a r t y appear p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e to some people. Many who moved to the p a r t y d i d so with strong commitment. For any new p a r t y to s u r v i v e , i t s i n i t i a l r e c r u i t s must be 221 e s p e c i a l l y committed, and t h i s seems to be the case here. The weaker l e v e l s of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h among more recent c o h o r t s of NDP i d e n t i f i e r s i s a product of the expansion of support f o r the p a r t y . As the p a r t y grows, i t a t t r a c t s more people who are m a r g i n a l l y committed to i t , thereby lowering the average l e v e l of p a r t i s a n s t r e n g t h . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , the i n c r e a s e i n the l i k e l i h o o d of i d e n t i f y i n g with the p a r t y among more recent c o h o r t s may not i n d i c a t e an i n c r e a s e i n s t a b l e support f o r the p a r t y . Rather, in t h e i r movement between p a r t i e s , newer c o h o r t s of v o t e r s may be more l i k e l y than o l d e r c o h o r t s to c o n s i d e r the NDP. The NDP p a t t e r n a c r o s s c o h o r t s may be the product of a g e n e r a t i o n a l s h i f t in the p a t t e r n s of exchange between p a r t i e s , and may not i n d i c a t e growth i n the p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n committed to the p a r t y . The L i b e r a l p a t t e r n comes c l o s e s t to meeting the p r e d i c t i o n s of the theory of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The L i b e r a l p a r t y has dominated Canadian e l e c t o r a l p o l i t i c s in t h i s c entury. Given t h i s r e c o r d , i t seems reasonable that a good number of L i b e r a l i d e n t i f i e r s have maintained a s t a b l e t i e with the p a r t y over time. Under the c o n d i t i o n s of a s t a b l e p a r t y performance and many s t a b l e i d e n t i f i e r s , the s t r e n g t h of p a r t y attachments grow i n the t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected manner. The weakness of the age-strength r e l a t i o n s h i p reminds us however, that many current, i d e n t i f i e r s with the p a r t y have not h e l d that t i e f o r a long 222 p e r i o d of t i m e . In sum, the h i s t o r i c a l performance of each p a r t y p l a y s an important r o l e i n e x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s for i d e n t i f i e r s wi th the d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s . F u r t h e r , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggests tha t for the t h e o r y to h o l d , a neces sary c o n d i t i o n must be a f a i r l y s t r o n g and s t a b l e performance by the p a r t y over t i m e . The L i b e r a l p a r t y ' s performance in t h i s c e n t u r y would seem to come c l o s e s t to meet ing t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t . The p a t t e r n s for NDP s t r e n g t h and d i r e c t i o n r e f l e c t the response of those who found the p a r t y (the C C F . ) p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e d u r i n g the D e p r e s s i o n , and the response g i v e n to the s t r o n g e r appea l made by the p a r t y a f t e r i t s r e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n 1962. S i m i l a r l y , that the < C o n s e r v a t i v e p a r t y was i n power for most of the Depres s ion caused a l l but i t s s t r o n g e s t s u p p o r t e r s to abandon the p a r t y . I t s poor showing i n subsequent e l e c t i o n s probably i n h i b i t e d the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and s t a b i l i z a t i o n of the p a r t y at tachments of many t h a t were pushed i n i t i a l l y toward the p a r t y by s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s . Hence, the h i s t o r i c a l . performance of the p a r t y both in and a f t e r the D e p r e s s i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n the r e s u l t s of the a g e - p e r i o d - c o h o r t a n a l y s e s . 223 THE THEORY OF PARTY I D E N T I F I C A T I O N AND INDIVIDUAL P O L I T I C A L BEHAVIOUR P a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may be u s e d t o e x p l a i n s h o r t - t e r m p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o r o f i n d i v i d u a l s i f i t c a n be d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t y t i e h a s been s t a b l e o v e r t i m e . I f s o , t h e n i t i s . r e a s o n a b l e t o t r e a t p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a s a l o n g - s t a n d i n g d i s p o s i t i o n t o a p a r t y t h a t p r e c e d e s c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e s a n d b e h a v i o r . I t i s t h e t e m p o r a l p r e c e d e n c e o f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a t a l l o w s i t t o assume t h i s e x p l a n a t o r y r o l e . B u t t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h i s r o l e i s l o s t i f p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s an a t t i t u d e o f l i m i t e d d u r a t i o n , and e s p e c i a l l y i f i t i s s h a p e d by t h e same p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e o t h e r s h o r t - t e r m a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r s . D i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y i s common i n t h e C a n a d i a n e l e c t o r a t e a n d f o r t h i s r e a s o n i t c a n n o t be assumed t h a t a r e s p o n s e t o t h e p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o b e r e f l e c t s a l o n g - t e r m t i e t o p a r t y . F o r some i t d o e s , b u t f o r many o t h e r s i t d o e s n o t . I f t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f an i d e n t i f i e r i s someone who has h e l d a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t i e t o a p a r t y f o r a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e , ( a n d I t a k e t h i s t o be t h e meaning i m p l i e d by C a m p b e l l e t a l . ) , t h e n t h e c u r r e n t m e asure of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s f l a w e d . I t o v e r e s t i m a t e s t h e number of i d e n t i f i e r s i n t h e e l e c t o r a t e a n d i t d o e s s o by a s u b s t a n t i a l amount. D e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h o f t h e s e r e s p o n s e s 224 r e p r e s e n t s a l o n g - t e r m commitment t o a p a r t y and which r e f l e c t a c u r r e n t p a r t y p r e f e r e n c e i s d i f f i c u l t . With c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l d a t a , the o n l y c l u e comes from the r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e c a l l of p a s t p a r t i s a n s h i p , but t h i s measure has been shown t o u n d e r e s t i m a t e d i r e c t i o n a l i n s t a b i l i t y . 6 Even w i t h p a n e l d a t a i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n a c l e a n i n d i c a t i o n of l o n g - t e r m p a r t i s a n p r e f e r e n c e s . I t cannot be assumed t h a t t h o s e who g i v e the same response t o the p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,probe over r e p e a t e d i n t e r v i e w s are i d e n t i f i e r s . For example, the absence of a change i n response may be due t o randomness, or i t may r e f l e c t the i d e n t i c a l outcome of d e c i s i o n s about p a r t y based s o l e l y on c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Many Canadians do h o l d an attachment t o a p a r t y t h a t has been s t a b l e over time and t h e s e p e o p l e s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as i d e n t i f i e r s . The volume of s h o r t - t e r m i d e n t i f i e r s i s s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e t o warn a g a i n s t t r e a t i n g r e sponses t o the p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n as i n d i c a t i n g a l o n g - t e r m t i e t o a p a r t y . U n t i l a b e t t e r measure of p a r t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s d e v e l o p e d , the concept has no use i n Canada. T h i s i s not because t h e r e a r e no l o n g - t e r m i d e n t i f i e r s ; i t i s because we a r e unable t o d e t e r m i n e who they a r e . 225 F o o t n o t e s Q 1. The i d e a of a system which i s i n e q u i l i b r i u m as a r e s u l t of o f f s e t t i n g exchanges between p a r t i e s has been most t h o r o u g h l y e x p l o r e d by R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n . For an example of such work see R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , "The R e p r o d u c t i o n of the R e l i g i o u s Cleavage i n Canadian E l e c t i o n s , " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , V o l . 18, 1985, p. 99-113. 2. T h i s p o i n t i s taken from R i c h a r d J o h n s t o n , " P o l i t i c a l G e n e r a t i o n s and E l e c t o r a l M o b i l i z a t i o n i n Canada", Paper p r e p a r e d f o r the Conference on G e n e r a t i o n s and P o l i t i c a l Change, Quebec C i t y , 1986, p. 38. 3. Angus Campbell e t . a l . , The American V o t e r , (New York: John W i l e y , 1960), p..121. 4. I b i d . , p. 165. 5 . I b i d . , p. 165. 6. See R.G. N i e m i , R.S. K a t z , and D. Newman, " R e c o n s t r u c t i n g Past P a r t i s a n s h i p : The F a i l u r e of the P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n " , American J o u r n a l  of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , V o l . 18, 1980, p. 633-651. 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramson, Paul R . , G e n e r a t i o n a l Change in American P o l i t i c s . L e x i n g t o n : D . C . H e a t h , 1975. A n d e r s e n , K r i s t i , " G e n e r a t i o n , P a r i t i s a n S h i f t , and Rea l ignment : A Glance Back to the New D e a l . " in Norman N i e , S idney V e r b a , and John P e t r o c i k , The  Changing American V o t e r . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979,, B i s c h o f f , L e d f o r d J . , I n t e r p r e t i n g P e r s o n a l i t y T h e o r i e s . New Y o r k : Harper and Row, 1964. B l a c k , Jerome, "Immigrant A d a p t a t i o n in Canada: Some T e n t a t i v e F i n d i n g s . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l  S c i e n c e , (1982) 15: 3-27. B l a k e , Donald E . , "1986 and A l l - T h a t : C r i t i c a l E l e c t i o n s in Canada ." Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1979) 12: 259-279. B l a k e , Donald E . , "The C o n s i s t e n c y of I n c o n s i s t e n c y : Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n in F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l P o l i t i c s . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1982) 15: 691-710. Brody , R i c h a r d A . , " S t a b i l i t y and Change in Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : P r e s i d e n t i a l to O f f - Y e a r s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d to the Annual Meet ing of the American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington , D . C , 1979. Budge, I a n , Crewe, I v o r , and F a r l i e , D e n n i s , e d s . , Par ty  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond: R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of V o t i n g  and P a r t y C o m p e t i t i o n . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1976. Budge, I a n , " I n t r o d u c t i o n : P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond." in Budge, I a n , Crewe, I v o r , and F a r l i e , D e n n i s , e d s . , P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond: R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of  V o t i n g and P a r t y C o m p e t i t i o n . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1976. B u t l e r , D a v i d , and S t o k e s , Donald E . , P o l i t i c a l Change in  B r i t a i n , London: M a c M i l l a n , 1969. C a m p b e l l , Angus, C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , M i l l e r , Warren E . , and S t o k e s , Donald E . , The American V o t e r . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1960. 227 C a m p b e l l , Angus, C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , M i l l e r , Warren E . , and S t o k e s , Donald E . , The American V o t e r . a b r i d g e d e d i t i o n . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1964. C a m p b e l l , Angus, "A C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of P r e s i d e n t i a l E l e c t i o n s . " in Angus C a m p b e l l , P h i l l i p E . C o n v e r s e , Warren E . M i l l e r , and Donald E . S tokes , E l e c t i o n s and  the P o l i t i c a l O r d e r . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1966. C l a r k e , H a r o l d D . , J e n s o n , J a n e , Leduc , Lawrence, and Pammet, J o n , P o l i t i c a l Cho ice in Canada. T o r o n t o : McGraw H i l l R y e r s o n , 1979. C l a r k e , H a r o l d D . , J e n s o n , J a n e , Leduc , Lawrence, and Pammet, J o n , P o l i t i c a l Cho ice i n Canada. a b r i d g e d e d i t i o n . T o r o n t o : McGraw H i l l R y e r s o n , 1980. C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , "The Concept of the Normal V o t e . " in Angus C a m p b e l l , P h i l l i p E . C o n v e r s e , Warren E . M i l l e r , and Donald E . S t o k e s , E l e c t i o n s and the P o l i t i c a l  O r d e r . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1966. C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , "Of Time and P a r t i s a n S t a b i l i t y . " Comparat ive P o l i t i c a l S t u d i e s , (1969) 2: 139-171. C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , "Survey Research and Decoding P a t t e r n s in Aggregate D a t a . " i n M a t t e i Dogan, and S t e i n Rokkan, Q u a n t i t a t i v e E c o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s in the S o c i a l  Sc i e n c e s . Cambridge: MIT P r e s s , 1969. C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , The Dynamics of P a r t y S u p p o r t : Cohort  A n a l y z i n g Party . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1 976. Cook, Thomas D . , and C a m p b e l l , Donald T . , Q u a s i - E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n : Des ign and A n a l y s i s I s sues For  F i e l d S e t t i n g s , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1979. C r i t t e n d e n , J o h n , "Aging and P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n . " P a r t y  O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , (1962) 36: 648-657. C u t l e r , N e i l E . , " G e n e r a t i o n , M a t u r a t i o n and P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n : A Cohort A n a l y s i s . " P u b l i c O p i n i o n  Q u a r t e r l y , (1970) 33: 583-588. E l k i n s , D a v i d J . , "Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : A C o n c e p t u a l A n a l y s i s . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1978) 11: 419-435. 228 E l k i n s , D a v i d J . , "The S t r u c t u r e of P r o v i n c i a l Par ty Systems." in D a v i d J . E l k i n s and R i c h a r d Simeon, e d s . , Smal l W o r l d s : P r o v i n c e s and P o l i t i c s in Canadian  P o l i t i c a l L i f e . T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1980. E l k i n s , D a v i d J . , "Issue Spaces , P a r t y P r o x i m i t y , and V o t i n g . " Paper p r e p a r e d for the Annual Meet ing of the American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , Denver , 1982. E n g l i s h , John , The D e c l i n e of P o l i t i c s : The C o n s e r v a t i v e s  and the P a r t y System 1901-20, T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1977. F i o r i n a , M o r r i s P . R e t r o s p e c t i v e V o t i n g in American  N a t i o n a l E l e c t i o n s . New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981. G l e n n , N o r v a l D . , "Sources of the S h i f t to P o l i t i c a l Independence: Some Ev idence From a Cohort A n a l y s i s . " S o c i a l Sc i ence Q u a r t e r l y , (1972) 494-529. G l e n n , N o r v a l D . , Cohort A n a l y s i s . B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1977. G l e n n , N o r v a l D. and H e f n e r , T e d , " F u r t h e r Ev idence on Aging and P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , (1972) 36: 31-47. G o l d b e r g , A r t h u r S . , " S o c i a l Determinism and R a t i o n a l i t y as Bases of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " American P o l i t i c a l  Sc i ence Review, (1969) 63: 5-25. Hess , Robert D. and T o r n e y , J u d i t h V . , The Development of  P o l i t i c a l A t t i t u d e s in C h i l d r e n . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e , 1967. H o w e l l , Susan E . , "The B e h a v i o u r a l Component of Changing P a r t i s a n s h i p . " American P o l i t i c s Q u a r t e r l y , (1980) 8: 279-302. Hudson, Robert B . and S t r a t e , J o h n , "Aging and the P o l i t i c a l System." i n Robert H . B i n s t o c k and E t h e l Shanas, e d s . , Handbook of Ag ing and the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . New Y o r k : Van N o s t r a n d R h e i n h o l d , 1985. I r v i n e , W i l l i a m P . , " E x p l a i n i n g the R e l i g i o u s B a s i s of the Canadian P a r t i s a n I d e n t i t y : Success on the T h i r d T r y . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1974) 7: 560-563. 229 Jackson, John E., "Issues, Party Choices and P r e s i d e n t i a l Votes." American J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Science, (1975) 19: 161-185. Jennings, M. Kent and Markus, Gregory B., " P a r t i s a n O r i e n t a t i o n s ov the Long-Haul: R e s u l t s from the Three-Wave P o l i t i c a l S o c i a l i z a t i o n Panel Study." American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, (1984) 78: 1000-1018. Jennings, M. Kent, and Niemi, Richard G., The P o l i t i c a l  C haracter of Adolescence: The I n f l u e n c e of F a m i l i e s  and S c h o o l s . P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974. Jenson, Jane, "Party L o y a l t y i n Canada: The Question of P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l  Science,* ( 1 975) 8: 543-553. Johnston, R i c h a r d , " F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l V o t i n g : Contemporary P a t t e r n s and H i s t o r i c a l E v o l u t i o n . " i n David J . E l k i n s and R i c h a r d Simeon, Small Worlds:  P r o v i n c e s and P a r t i e s i n Canadian P o l i t i c a l L i f e . Toronto: Methuen, 1980. Johnston, R i c h a r d , "The Reproduction of the R e l i g i o u s Cleavage i n Canadian E l e c t i o n s . " Canadian Journal of  P o l i t i c a l S cience, (1985), 18: 99-113. Johnston, R i c h a r d , "Problems in the C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Comparison of Mass P a r t i s a n s h i p . " Paper prepared f o r the Midwest P o l i t i c a l Science A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1986. Johnston, R i c h a r d , " P o l i t i c a l Generations and E l e c t o r a l M o b i l i z a t i o n in Canada." Paper prepared f o r the Conference on Generations and P o l i t i c a l Change, Quebec C i t y , 1986. Katz, R i c h a r d S., "The D i m e n s i o n a l i t y of Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : C r o s s - N a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e . " Comparative P o l i t i c s , (1979) 11: 147-163. Knoke, David, Change and C o n t i n u i t y i n American P o l i t i c s :  The S o c i a l Bases of P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s . B a l t i m o r e : John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976. Knoke, David and Hout, M i c h a e l , " S o c i a l and Demographic F a c t o r s i n American P o l i t i c a l P a r t y A f f i l i a t i o n s , 1952-1972." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, (1974) 39: 700-713. 230 Laponce , Jean A . , " P o s t - D i e t i n g E l e c t o r a l C leavages in Canadian F e d e r a l E l e c t i o n s , 1949-1968: M a t e r i a l for a F o o t n o t e . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1972) 5: 270-286. L e d u c , Lawrence , "The Dynamic P r o p e r t i e s of Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : A F o u r - N a t i o n C o m p a r i s o n . " i n R i c h a r d G . Niemi and H e r b e r t F . W e i s b e r g , e d s . , C o n t r o v e r s i e s  i n V o t i n g B e h a v i o u r . Washington , D . C : C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , 1984. L e d u c , Lawrence , C l a r k e , H a r o l d D . , J e n s o n , J a n e , and Pammet, J o n , " P a r t i s a n I n s t a b i l i t y i n Canada: Ev idence From a New Panel S t u d y . " American P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence  Review, (1984) 78 : .470-484 . L i p s e t , Seymour M a r t i n , P o l i t i c a l Man. Garden C i t y : Anchor , 1963. Markus , Gregory B . , "Dynamic M o d e l l i n g of Cohort Change." American J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1983) 27: 717-739. Markus , Gregory B. and C o n v e r s e , P h i l i p E . , "A Dynamic S imul taneous E q u a t i o n Model of E l e c t o r a l C h o i c e . " American P o l i t i c a l Sc i ence Review, (1979) 73: 1055-1070. Mason, Karen 0 . , Mason, W i l l i a m M . , Winsborough, H . H . , and P o o l e , W. Kenneth , "Some M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Issues in Cohort A n a l y s i s of A r c h i v a l D a t a . " Amer i can  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, (1973) 38: 242-258. M c C l o s k y , H e r b e r t and D a h l g r e n , H a r o l d E . , "Primary Group I n f l u e n c e on P a r t y L o y a l t y . " American P o l i t i c a l  Sc i ence Review, (1959) 757-776. M e i s e l , J o h n , Working Papers on Canadian P o l i t i c s . M o n t r e a l : M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975. M i l l e r , Warren , E . , "The C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Use of Par ty I d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a S t i m u l u s to P o l i t i c a l I n q u i r y . " i n Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe and Dennis F a r l i e , e d s . , P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond: R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of  V o t i n g and P a r t y C o m p e t i t i o n . New Y o r k : John W i l e y , 1976. 231 N i e , Norman H . , V e r b a , S i d n e y , and P e t r o c i k , John R . , The  Changing American V o t e r . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. N i e m i , R i c h a r d G . and W e i s b e r g , Herber t F . , e d s . , C o n t r o v e r s i e s i n American V o t i n g B e h a v i o u r . San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeeman, 1976. N i e m i , R i c h a r d G . and W e i s b e r g , Herber t F . , e d s . , C o n t r o v e r s i e s in V o t i n g B e h a v i o u r . Washington, D . C : C o n g r e s s i o n a l Q u a r t e r l y , 1984. N i e m i , R i c h a r d G . , K a t z , R . S . , and Newman, D . , " R e c o n s t r u c t i n g Past P a r t i s a n s h i p : The F a i l u r e of The P a r t y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n R e c a l l Q u e s t i o n . " Amer i can  J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1980) 18: 633-651. Ogmundsen, R . L . , "A Note on the Ambiguous Meaning of Survey Research Which Use the Words ' L e f t ' and ' R i g h t ' . " Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , (1979) 12: 799-805. Rodgers , W i l l a r d , "Es t imab le F u n c t i o n s of Age, P e r i o d , and Cohort E f f e c t s . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, (1982) 47: 774-787. Rodgers , W i l l a r d , "Reply to S m i t h , Mason and F i e n b e r g . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, (1982) 47: 793-796. Ryder , Norman B. "The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of S o c i a l Change." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, (1965) 30: 843-861. Scarrow, Howard, Canada V o t e s : A Handbook of F e d e r a l and  P r o v i n c i a l E l e c t i o n D a t a . New O r l e a n s : Hauser , 1962. S m i t h , H e r b e r t L . , Mason, W i l l i a m , M . , and F i e n b e r g , Stephen E . , "More Chimeras of the A g e - P e r i o d - C o h o r t A c c o u n t i n g Framework: Comment on R o d g e r s . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review, (1982) 47: 787-793. Sniderman, P a u l , F o r b e s , H . D . , and M e l z e r , I a n , "Party L o y a l t y and E l e c t o r a l V o l a t i l i t y : A Study of the Canadian P a r t y Sys tem." Canadian J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l  S c i e n c e , (1974) 7: 268-288. Thomassen, Jaques , "Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a C r o s s - N a t i o n a l Concept : I t s Meaning i n the N e t h e r l a n d s . " in Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis F a r l i e , e d s . , P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Beyond. London: John W i l e y , 1976. 232 Weisberg, Herbert F., "A M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of Party I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " P o l i t i c a l Behaviour, (1980) 2: 33-60. : 233 APPENDIX I T a b l e XXXV F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and C o h o r t G r o u p s - A l l I d e n t i f i e r s Aqe N C o h o r t N 1 8 - 2 0 155 1 9 5 6 - 5 8 225 2 1 - 2 3 581 1 9 5 3 - 5 5 294 2 4 - 2 6 565 1 9 5 0 - 5 2 225 2 7 - 2 9 488 . 1 9 4 7 - 4 9 325 3 0 - 3 2 496 1 9 4 4 - 4 6 44 9 3 3 - 3 5 480 1 9 4 1 - 4 3 441 3 6 - 3 8 472 1 9 3 8 - 4 0 465 3 9 r 4 1 449 1 9 3 5 - 3 7 441 4 2 - 4 4 441 1 9 3 2 - 3 4 472 4 5 - 4 7 480 1 9 2 9 - 3 1 472 4 8 - 5 0 472 1 9 2 6 - 2 8 511 5 1 - 5 3 426 1 9 2 3 - 2 5 441 5 4 - 5 6 364 1 9 2 0 - 2 2 488 5 7 - 5 9 310 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 403 6 0 - 6 2 341 1 9 1 4 - 1 6 356 6 3 - 6 5 27 1 1 9 1 1 - 1 3 325 6 6 - 6 8 232 1 9 0 8 - 1 0 302 6 9 - 7 1 209 1 9 0 5 - 0 7 240 7 2 - 7 4 163 1 9 0 2 - 0 4 186 7 5 - 7 7 1 40 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 0 1 1 94 7 8 - 8 0 101 1 8 9 6 - 9 8 1 55 81 + 124 1 8 9 3 - 9 5 116 1 8 9 0 - 9 2 77 1 8 8 7 - 8 9 62 - 1 8 8 6 70 234 Table XXXVI Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort G r o u p s - L i b e r a l s Age N Cohort N 18-23 387 1953-58 260 24-29 558 1947-52 281 30-35 521 1941-46 476 36-41 488 1935-40 509 42-47 497 1929-34 525 48-53 492 1923-28 509 54-59 334 1917-22 464 60-65 301 1911-16 346 66-71 232 1905-10 277 72 + 256 1899-1904 191 1893-98 142 -1892 90 Table XXXVII  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups- Conservat ives Aqe , N Cohort N 18-23 1 65 1953-58 1 26 24-29 257 1947-52 1 24 30-35 273 1941-46 234 36-41 257 1 935-40 244 42-47 283 1929-34 273 48-53 255 1923-28 278 54-59 232 1917-22 273 60-65 207 1911-16 234 66-71 1 52 1905-10 184 72 + 218 1899-1904 131 1893-98 97 -1892 99 Table XXXVIII Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups-NDP Aqe N Cohort N 18-23 125 1953-58 1 00 24-29 1 63 1947-52 1 08 30-35 1 27 1941-46 1 28 36-41 1 28 1935-40 1.10 42-47 105 1929-34 97 48-53 108 1923-28 125 54-59 72 1917-22 1 02 60-65 66 1911-16 70 66-71 40 1905-10 50 72 + 26 1899-1904 40 1893-98 20 -1892 10 236 APPENDIX II T a b l e XXXIX S o c i a l E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Year 1965 1968 1974 1979 b t . b t b t b t Gender .05 2, .54 .03 1 , .60 .06 2, .89 .04 1 . .70 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .00 .02 .03 .68 .08 .92 .02 .59 P r o p r i e t o r s - . 0 2 » .39 .03 .66 .05 .62 .02 .46 C l e r i c a l .04 .93 .02 .49 .05 .55 .07 2, .16 S k i l l e d .02 .46 .03 1 , .08 .02 . 1 9 .04 .95 S e m i - S k i l l e d - . 0 0 * .05 .04 .96 .07 .79 - . 0 3 .71 U n s k i l l e d .02 .47 - . 0 0 .23 .04 .41 - .05 -1 , .31 Farmers - . 0 5 -1 , .09 -.10 -2 . .58 .00 .04 - . 1 2 -2, .23 C l a s s Upper . 1 1 2, .63 .05 1 , .25 .15 3, .86 .07 2, .05 M i d d l e .06 2, .48 .06 2, .78 .03 1 .32 .05 2, .21 No C l a s s - .11 -2 , .03 - . 0 3 .70 - .01 .33 .01 .35 E d u c a t i o n .00 .06 .001 2, .62 - . 0 0 -1 , .10 -.01 -1 , .92 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c .26 9, .96 .24 10, . 1 1 .18 7 .33 . 1 2 5, . 1 4 Other .43 4. . 76 . 1 7 3, .05 .05 1 , .00 .28 . 4 , .29 No r e l i g i o n .05 .78 .03 .55 .01 .30 .02 .59 Region A t l a n t i c .01 .36 -.00 --, . 17 .05 1 .74 . .01 .45 Quebec - . 1 6 -5! . 13 - . 0 7 -2, . 62 .03 1 , . 1 4 .10 3, .46 West - . 1 2 -4, .26 - . 0 6 -2 , .47 - . 0 9 -3 , .42 - . 1 6 -6, .18 Cons tant .25 5, .46 .25 5, .94 .32 3 .28 .38 8; .80 R 2 .078 .063 .069 .090 N=( ) (211 8) (2764) (2552) (2682) 237 T a b l e XL S o c i a l E f f e c t s on PC I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Year 1965 1968 1974 1979 b t b t b t b t Gender .01 .73 .01 .64 - . 0 2 -1 , .37 - . 0 2 -1 , . 1 0 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l -.18 -4, .06 .01 .33 - . 0 6 - .84 - . 0 0 - .24 Propr i e t o r s - .12 -3 , .08 - . 0 0 . 1 1 - . 0 2 - .25 .03 .95 C l e r i c a l - . 10 -2 , .87 - . 0 0 .06 - . 0 6 .89 - . 0 2 .80 S k i l l e d - . 1 3 -4, .36 - . 0 7 -2 , .63 - . 0 6 .82 - . 0 8 -2 .03 S e m i - S k i l l e d -.18 -4, .05 .02 .49 - . 1 0 -1 .41 - .01 - .37 U n s k i l l e d - .12 -3 , . 16 - . 04 -1 , .26 - . 1 0 -1 .33 > - .07 -2, .23 Farmers .01 .36 . 1 1 3, .37 .04 .57 .02 .51 C l a s s Upper .02 .56 .00 .02 .02 .69 .07 2 . 1 6 M i d d l e .02 .88 .03 1 , .73 .04 2 .40 .03 1 , ;79 No C l a s s .03 .66 - . 0 2 .65 - . 0 2 .49 - . 0 0 . 1 2 Educat i on .00 .63 - . 005 -2 , .88 • - .007 -2 , .79 - . 0 0 5 -1 , .83 R e l i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 20 -8 , .69 - . 2 0 - 10, . 1 9 - . 1 8 -9 .01 - . 1 6 -7 , .70 Other - .24 -2 , .99 - . 1 9 -4, . 1 1 - . 1 0 -2, .38 , - . 2 2 -3 , .77 No r e l i g i o n - .22 -3 . .73 - . 2 9 -6 , .83 - . 1 8 -5 , . 1 4 - . 2 4 -6 , .86 Region A t l a n t i c .08 2, .47 .10 3, .55 .04 1 , .78 .02 .69 Quebec - . 0 7 -2 , .60 .00 .41 - . 1 0 -4, .17 - . 1 5 -5 , .98 West - . 03 -1 , . 14 - . 0 0 .09 .03 1 , .32 .09 3, .95 Cons tant .45 10, .81 .38 10, .59 .45 5, .74 .44 1 1 , .46 R 2 .109 .083 . 102 .114 N=( ) (21 1 8) (2764) (2552) (2682) 238 T a b l e XLI S o c i a l E f f e c t s on NDP I d e n t i f i c a t i o n by Year 1965 1968 1974 1979 b t b t b t b t Gender - . 0 3 -2 .18 - . 0 2 -2 , .23 - .01 -1 , .21 - . 0 0 .29 Occupat ion P r o f e s s i o n a l .09 2, .84 - . 0 0 .32 .03 .66 - . 0 2 .79 P r o p r i e t o r s - . 0 0 .28 - . 0 2 .74 .03 .59 - . 0 0 . 1 3 C l e r i c a l .04 1 , .47 - .01 i .65 .05 1 , .02 - . 0 3 - 1 .24 S k i l l e d .07 •3, .36 .06 3, . 13 .07 1 , .26 .06 2, . 1 2 S e m i - S k i l l e d .06 1 . .91 .00 .07 .09 1 , .68 .04 1 , .46 U n s k i l l e d .04 1 , .48 .02 1 , . 12 .08 1 , .59 .10 3, .45 Farmers - . 0 0 - .04 - . 0 0 .18 .02 .39 - . 0 2 - .62 C l a s s • Upper - . 0 2 .78 - . 0 6 -2 , .32 - . 0 7 -3 , .05 - . 0 7 -2, .84 M i d d l e - . 0 3 -1 , .67 - . 0 6 -4 , .78 - . 0 2 -1 , .25 - . 0 5 -3 , .40 No C l a s s - . 0 6 -1 , .85 - . 0 6 -2 , .51 - . 0 4 -1 , .54 - . 0 8 -3 . .29 Educat ion .00 .74 .00 .30 .007 3, • 89 .008 4 , .01 R e i i g i o n C a t h o l i c - . 0 2 -1 , .49 - .01 • .81 .00 .66 . 03 1 , .79 Other .06 .96 .02 ^ .58 - .01 .37 - . 02 .51 No r e l i g i o n .03 .79 . 1 1 . 3. .67 . 1 1 .4 . 54 .07 2, .80 Region A t l a n t i c - . 0 7 -3 , .02 - . 1 3 -6 . .74 - . 0 5 -3 , .02 - . 0 8 -4 . .54 Quebec - . 0 3 -1 , .80 - . 1 0 - 5 . .92 - . 0 6 -3 , .53 - . 1 0 -5 , .47 West .03 1 , .83 - . 0 2 -1 , .48 .03 1 , .63 .02 1 , .06 Constant .09 3, .01 . 1 7 6. .75 - .01 -, .21 .08 2 , .83 R 2 .037 .062 .046 .054 N=( ) (211 8) (2764) (2552) (2682) T a b l e XLII Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Age and Cohort Groups Aqe N Cohort N 18-20 194 1956-58 281 21-23 716 1953-55 368 24-26 687 1950-52 300 27-29 619 1947-49 397 30-32 619 1944-46 542 33-35 600 1941-43 561 36-38 610 1938-40 561 39-41 552 1935-37 552 42-44 552 1932-34 600 45-47 600 1929-31 600 48-50 600 1926-28 619 51-53 532 1923-25 561 54-56 464 1920-22 610 57-59 387 1917-19 484 60-62 416 1914-16 456 63-65 339 1911-13 426 66-68 300 1908-10 377 69-71 261 1905-07 300 72-74 203 1902-04 232 75-77 1 65 1899-1901 242 78-80 1 26 1 8.96-98 1 84 81 + 1 45 1893-95 1 45 1890-92 97 1887-89 77 -1886 87 240 T a b l e X L I I I S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on L i b e r a l P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in Quebec,. O n t a r i o and the P r a i r i e s  ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) Quebec b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender .07 3.67 1951-54 Occupat i o n : 1947-50 .17 3.40 P r o f e s s i o n a l - - .01 - . 14 1943-46 . 1 2 2.81 P r o p r i e t o r .03 .88 1939-42 .07 1 .56 C l e r i c a l .06 1 .52 1935-38 . 1 4 3.06 S k i l l e d .05 1 .33 1931-34 .16 3.34 S e m i - s k i l i e d .05 1 .13 1927-30 . 1 9 3.91 U n s k i l l e d .01 .35 1 923-26 .22 4.54 Farmers - . 0 7 -1 .40 1919-22 .22 4.50 E d u c a t i o n . 005 1 .40 1915-18 . 1 7 3.38 C l a s s : 1911-14 .20 3.76 Upper .09 2.41 1907-10 .22 3.98 M i d d l e .04 1 .97 1903-06 .29 4.65 No C l a s s .01 .23 1899-1902 .30 4.71 R e l i g i o n : 1895-98 .31 4.46 C a t h o l i c .01 .21 -1894 .29 4.12 Other . 1 4 1 .83 No r e l i g i o n - . 1 0 -1 .14 Constant .30 4.38 R 2 . 053 Per i o d 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1974 - . 0 3 - . 8 5 (X) .017 3.18 1968 - . 0 9 -3 .22 ( P e r i o d ) .022 21.61 1965 - . 2 2 - 7 . 15 (Cohort ) .018 3. 55 N=2769 241 T a b l e XL-III ( cont inued) Ontar i o b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 — - Gender .05 3.01 1951-54 O c c u p a t i o n : 1947-50 - . 0 9 -1 .90 P r o f e s s i o n a l .06 1 .48 1943-46 .03 .58 P r o p r i e t o r .05 1 .45 1939-42 .05 1 .15 C l e r i c a l .05 1 .38 1935-38 - . 0 2 - .53 S k i l l e d .03 .81 1931-34 - . 0 2 - .38 S e m i - s k i l l e d .05 1 .28 1927-30 - . 04 -1 .09 U n s k i l l e d .02 .40 1923-26 - . 0 2 - .59 Farmers .04 1.01 1919-22 - . 0 3 - .73 Educat ion - . 0 0 3 - . 9 6 1915-18 - . 0 5 -1 . 1 3 C l a s s : 1911-14 - . 0 2 - .54 Upper . 1 1 3.33 1907-10 - . 0 2 - .32 M i d d l e .08 4. 34 1903-06 - . 1 2 -2 .24 No C l a s s .03 .78 1899-1902 - . 0 8 -1 .32 R e i i g i o n : 1895-98 - . 1 2 -1 .76 C a t h o l i c .31 16.71 -1 894 - . 0 5 - .82 Other .20 4.80 No r e l i g i o n .07 1 .92 Constant .25 4.56 R 2 .102 P e r i o d > 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1 974 .01 , .58 (X) .087 21 .73 1968 .07 2 .84 (Per iod) .003 4.14 1 965 .00 .15 (Cohort ) .006 1 . 48 N=3392 242 T a b l e X L I I I ( cont inued) P r a i r i e s b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender .02 1.10 1951-54 • Occupat i o n : 1947-50 - . 0 6 -1 .05 P r o f e s s i o n a l .10 1 .96 1943-46 .02 .40 Propr i e t o r .12 2.56 1939-42 .06 1 .05 C l e r i c a l .07 1 .68 1935-38 - . 0 0 - .04 S k i l l e d .07 1 .64 1931-34 .04 .69 S e m i - s k i l l e d - . 0 0 - . 0 9 1927-30 - . 0 7 -1 .30 U n s k i l l e d - . 0 0 - . 0 3 1923-26 .03 .58 Farmers - . 0 8 -1 .80 1919-22 .06 1 . 1,0 Educat ion .009 2.02 1915-18 - . 0 2 .37 C l a s s : 1911-14 .06 1 .00 Upper . 1 4 2.64 1907-10 .00 .07 M i d d l e .03 1.11 1903-06 .07 .95 No C l a s s - . 0 3 - . 7 8 1899-1902 .00 .-07 R e l i g i o n : 1895-98 .01 . 1 4 C a t h o l i c .21 8.22 -1894 .13 1 .76 Other .04 .74 No r e l i g i o n .06 .94 Constant - . 0 3 .43 R 2 .096 P e r i o d 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1 974 . 1 0 3 .06 (X) .068 8.29 1 968 .16 4 .80 ( P e r i o d ) .015 9.06 1 965 .06 1 .50 (Cohort ) .009 1.15 N=1684 243 T a b l e XLIV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on PC P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i n Quebec, O n t a r i o and the P r a i r i e s  ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ) Quebec b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender - . 0 0 - . 1 5 1951-54 Occupat i o n : 1947-50 - .01 - . 3 7 P r o f e s s i o n a l - . 0 2 - .92 1943-46 - . 0 0 - . 0 9 Propr i e t o r - . 0 2 - . 78 1939-42 .01 .34 C l e r i c a l - . 0 5 -2 .29 1935-38 .03 1 .03 S k i l l e d - . 0 3 -1 .33 1931-34 .00 .12 S e m i - s k i l l e d - . 0 2 - .86 1927-30 . 00 .09 U n s k i l l e d - . 0 3 -1 .45 1923-26 - . 0 6 -2 .02 Farmers .08 2.45 1919-22 .00 .06 Educat ion - .001 - . 62 1915-18 .02 .52 . C l a s s : 1911-14 . 05 1 .46 Upper - . 0 2 - . 9 3 1907-10 . 03 .85 M i d d l e - . 0 2 -1 .13 1903-06 - .01 - . 3 9 No C l a s s - . 0 9 -2 .76 1899-1902 - .04 - .91 R e l i g i o n : 1 895-98 .06 1.46 C a t h o l i c - . 0 8 -3 .59 -1894 . 13 2.99 Other - . 1 4 -2 .44 No r e l i g i o n - . 1 3 -2 .70 Constant .21 4.89 R 2 .042 P e r i o d 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1974 - .02 - .91 (X) .016 3.01 1 968 .06 3.41 ( P e r i o d ) .008 •7.99 1 965 .02 .78 (Cohort ) .011 2.09 N=2769 244 T a b l e XLIV ( cont inued) O n t a r i o b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender - . 0 2 -1.41 1951-54 . O c c u p a t i o n : 1947-50 .07 1 .57 P r o f e s s i o n a l - . 0 5 -1 .52 1943-46 .05 1 .37 Propr i e t o r - . 0 2 - . 52 1939-42 .07 1 .80 C l e r i c a l - .01 - . 1 9 1935-38 .09 2.45 S k i l l e d - . 0 6 -1 . 85 1931-34 .10 2.52 S e m i - s k i l l e d - . 0 7 -1 .98 1927-30 .10 2.73 . U n s k i l l e d - . 0 3 -1 .00 1923-26 . 1 1 2.97 Farmers .04 1 .08 1919*22 . 10 " 2.54 E d u c a t i o n .00 .22 1915-18 .13 3.15 C l a s s : 1911-14 . 1 0 2.34 Upper .06 2.14 1907-10 . 10 2.30 M i d d l e .06 3.49 1903-06 . 1 3 2.70 No C l a s s .00 .01 1899-1902 . 17 3.28 R e l i g i o n : 1895-98 . 1 9 3.25 C a t h o l i c - . 2 7 -16.21 -1894 . 1 5 2.71 Other - .21 - 5 . 5 9 No r e l i g i o n - . 2 5 - 7 .46 Constant .33 6.63 R 2 .114 P e r i o d 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1 974 - . 0 6 -2 .42 (x) .094 23.71 1 968 - . 0 9 -3 .94 ( P e r i o d ) .005 5.83 1 965 - . 0 3 -1 .40 (Cohort ) .006 1 .42 N=3392 245 T a b l e XLIV ( cont inued) P r a i r i e s b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender .01 .37 1951-54 Occupat i o n : 1947-50 - . 1 3 -2 .22 P r o f e s s i o n a l - . 0 5 - . 9 7 1943-46 .04 .63 P r o p r i e t o r - . 0 2 - .32 1939-42 - . 0 3 - . 4 3 C l e r i c a l - . 0 3 - . 63 1935-38 - . 0 0 - . 0 8 S k i l l e d - . 1 0 -2 .15 1931-34 .00 .05 S e m i - s k i l i e d - . 0 8 -1 .48 1927-30 .05 .84 U n s k i l l e d - . 0 8 -1.51 1923-26 - . 0 7 - 1 . 1 5 Farmers .10 2.12 1919-22 - . 0 9 -1 .62 Educat ion - .01 -2 .30 1 91 5-18 - .04 - . 6 0 C l a s s : 1911-14 - . 04 - . 6 5 Upper - . 0 4 - . 7 5 1907-10 - . 0 5 - .81 M i d d l e .02 .88 1903-06 - . 1 2 -1 . 58 No C l a s s - . 0 2 - .44 1899-1902 - . 0 8 -1.01 R e l i g i o n : 1895-98 .01 . 1 1 C a t h o l i c - . 1 8 -6 .52 -1 894 - . 1 3 -1 .65 Other - . 0 7 -1 .02 No r e l i g i o n - . 2 5 -4 .72 Constant .70 9.06 R 2 .077 P e r i o d 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1 974 - . 1 3 -3 .63 (X) .051 6.11 1968 - . 1 6 - 4 . 48 (Per iod) .013 7.46 1 965 - . 14 -3 .52 (Cohort) .012 1 .40 N=1684 246 T a b l e XLV S o c i a l and Demographic E f f e c t s on NDP P a r t y  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i n Quebec, O n t a r i o and the P r a i r i e s  ( E x c l u d i n g Age E f f e c t s ! Quebec b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 --- Gender - . 02 -2 .64 1951-54 O c c u p a t i o n : 1947-50 - . 0 2 - .87 P r o f e s s i o n a l .03 1 .60 1943-46 .02 .79 P r o p r i e t o r - .01 - . 8 2 1939-42 - . 0 0 - .06 C l e r i c a l .01 .44 1935-38 - . 0 5 -2 .42 S k i l l e d - .01 - . 3 5 1931-34 - . 04 -1 .94 S e m i - s k i l l e d - . 04 -1 .95 1927-30 - . 0 3 -1 .24 U n s k i l l e d .00 . 1 6 1923-26 - . 0 3 -1 .28 Farmers - . 0 3 -1 .26 1919-22 - . 0 3 -1 .65 Educat ion . 005 3.54 1915-18 - . 0 3 -1 .22 C l a s s : 1911-14 - . 0 5 -2 .27 Upper .04 2.27 1907-10 - . 0 6 -2 .62 M i d d l e .01 .96 1903-06 - . 0 7 -2 .61 No C l a s s - . 0 3 -1 .42 1899-1902 - . 0 6 -2 .27 R e l i g i o n : 1895-98 - . 0 5 -1 .66 C a t h o l i c .04 2.38 -1 894 - . 0 6 -2 .09 Other .09 2.70 No r e l i g i o n .06 1 .62 Constant - . 0 0 - .01 R 2 .054 P e r i o d 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1 974 - .01 - .61 (x) .030 5.87 1 968 - .01 -1 .09 (Per iod) .004 3.56 1 965 .02 1 .66 (Cohort) .010 1 .99 N=2769 247 T a b l e XLV (cont inued) Ontar io b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender - .01 - . 8 6 1951-54 O c c u p a t i o n : 1947-50 .05 1 .44 P r o f e s s i o n a l .01 .41 1943-46 - . 0 7 -2 .15 P r o p r i e t o r .02 .79 1939-42 - . 0 8 -2 .59 C l e r i c a l .00 .08 1935-38 - . 0 5 -1 .75 S k i l l e d .10 4.31 1 931-34 - . 0 9 -2 .99 S e m i - s k i l l e d .09 3.39 1927-30 - . 0 6 -2 .01 U n s k i l l e d .07 2.54 1923-26 - . 0 7 -2 .53 Farmers - . 0 4 -1 .41 1919-22 - . 1 0 -3 .23 E d u c a t i o n .00 .28 1915-18 - . 0 6 -1 .87 C l a s s : 1 91 1 - J 4 - . 0 7 -2 .26 Upper - . 1 2 - 5 . 2 5 1907-10 - . 0 8 -2 .25 M i d d l e - . 0 9 -6 .42 1 903-0(5 - . 0 6 -1 .60 No C l a s s - . 1 1 - 4 . 3 7 1899-1902 - . 0 9 -2 .27 R e l i g i o n : 1895-98 - . 0 7 -1 .51 C a t h o l i c - . 0 2 -1 .54 -1894 - . 1 3 -2 .98 Other - . 0 6 -1 .96 No r e l i g i o n .05 . 2 . 1 1 Cons tant .26 6. 59 R 2 .063 P e r i o d . 1 979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1974 - . 0 6 -3 .47 (X) .047 11.12 1968 - . 0 3 -1 .54 ( P e r i o d ) .004 5.34 1965 - . 0 6 -3 . 14 (Cohort ) .009 2.09 N=3392 248 T a b l e XLIV ( cont inued) P r a i r i e s b t b t Cohort S o c i a l V a r i a b l e s 1955-58 Gender - .01 - .52 1 951-54 O c c u p a t i o n : 1 947-50 .07 1 .72 P r o f e s s i o n a l - . 0 2 - .53 1943-46 - . 0 6 -1 .43 Propr i e t o r - . 0 4 -1 .16 1939-42 - . 0 6 -1 .44 C l e r i c a l - . 0 0 - . 0 9 1935-38 - . 02 - .51 S k i l l e d .04 1 .29 1931-34 - . 0 6 -1 .53 S e m i - s k i l l e d .04 .90 1927-30 - . 0 3 - .63 U n s k i l l e d .03 .91 1 923-26 - . 0 5 -1 .05 Farmers .02 .52 1919-22 .01 .18 Educat ion .001 .44 1915-18 - . 0 6 -1 .46 C l a s s : 1911-14 - . 0 6 -1 .37 Uppe r - . 0 8 -1 .97 1907-1 0 .01 .31 M i d d l e - . 0 2 -1 .29 1903-06 - .01 - .27 No C l a s s - . 0 8 -2 .38 1899-1902 .06 1 .05 R e i i g i o n : 1895-98 - . 0 3 - .46 C a t h o l i c .03 1 .33 -1 894 - . 0 6 -1 .04 Other .04 1.16 No r e l i g i o n - . 0 3 - . 54 Constant . 15 2.81 R 2 .031 Per i o d 1979 R2 Change C o e f f . F 1974 - . 02 - .63 (X) .016 1 .76 1 968 - .01 - .53 ( P e r i o d ) .000 .15 1 965 -.01 - .43 (Cohort ) .01.4 1 .56 N=1684 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097079/manifest

Comment

Related Items