Unbundling Linked Fate: How Respondents Interpret Linked Fate Question
Linked fate is a canonical measure of group solidarity in the study of race and ethnic politics. We argue that the standard wording used for this concept is too general to unbundle distinct ways survey respondents might interpret the linked fate question. We conceptualize two ways respondents might think about their ties to a racial group: linked hurt or linked progress. Linked hurt is when a respondent believes that when their group is hurt, they are hurt, while linked progress is when a respondent believes that when their group is helped, they are also helped. We compared the standard linked fate measure to our measures using a representative survey in California (n = 4,435). We found that our alternative measures are valid and more reliable than the standard linked fate measure. We also found that the relative political role of linked fate across racial groups varies depending on how linked fate is measured. We recommend that scholars use our measures over the standard measure of linked fate to understand how linked fate shapes racialized political behavior more precisely and reliably.
Click the button and follow the links to connect to the full text. (KDI CL members only)
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.