Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9494-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The nature of democratic governance is intimately connected with how citizens respond to candidate position taking. But when will a generally uninformed public base its vote choices on candidate positions? Since Converse scholars have argued that citizens should place greater weight on candidate positions on issues they consider personally important. However, this claim has received mixed empirical support. We revisit this question with compelling new evidence. First, we expand the limited temporal focus of existing work in our first study where we analyze all available ANES data on importance and issue voting between 1980 and 2008. We then overcome endogeneity concerns through a nationally representative conjoint experiment in which we randomize two candidate’s positions on five issues. Results from both studies demonstrate that there is scant evidence that subjective issue importance consistently moderates the relationship between candidate positions and vote choices. We discuss the implications of these results for “issue public” theories of political engagement, for research on voting behavior, and for political representation.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1698 kb)11109_2018_9494_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Adams, J., Bishin, B. G., & Dow, J. K. (2004). Representation in congressional campaigns: Evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. senate elections. Journal of Politics, 66, 348–373. CrossRef
Ahler, D. J., & Broockman, D. E. (2017). The delegate paradox: Why polarized politicians can represent citizens best. The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2958017.
Aldrich, J. H., & McKelvey, R. D. (1977). A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. The American Political Science Review, 71(1), 111–130. CrossRef
Ballard-Rosa, C., Martin, L., & Scheve, K. (2016). The structure of American income tax policy preferences. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 1–16. CrossRef
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan Bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. CrossRef
Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27, 477–491. CrossRef
Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: The Relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 566–586. CrossRef
Bolsen, T., & Leeper, T. J. (2013). Self-Interest and attention to news among issue publics. Political Communication, 30(3), 329–384. CrossRef
Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Broockman, D. E., & Butler, D. M. (2017). The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 208–221. CrossRef
Burden, B. C., & Sanberg, J. N. R. (2003). Budget rhetoric in presidential campaigns from 1952 to 2000. Political Behavior, 25(2), 97–118. CrossRef
Carmines, Edward G., & Stimson, James A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91. CrossRef
Carnes, N., & Lupu, N. (2016). Do voters dislike politicians from the working class? American Political Science Review, 110(4), 832–844. CrossRef
Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 100–114. CrossRef
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Druckman, J. N. (2014). Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Communication, 31(3), 467–492. CrossRef
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fournier, P., Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2003). Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior, 25(1), 51–67. CrossRef
Granberg, D., & Holmberg, S. (1986). Political perception among voters in Sweden and the U.S.: Analyses of issues with explicit alternatives. The Western Political Quarterly, 39(1), 7–28. CrossRef
Grynaviski, J. D., & Corrigan, B. E. (2006). Specification issues in proximity models of candidate evaluation (with issue importance). Political Analysis, 14, 393–420. CrossRef
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400. CrossRef
Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: Analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. CrossRef
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. CrossRef
Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J., & Xu, Y. (2018). How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis.
Hanretty, C., Lauderdale, B. E., & Vivyan N. (2018). Measuring Issue Importance.
Henderson, M. (2014). Issue publics, campaigns, and political knowledge. Political Behavior, 36(3), 631–657. CrossRef
Hinckley, B., Hofstetter, R., & Kessel, J. (1974). Information and the vote: A comparative election study. American Politics Quarterly, 2(2), 131–158. CrossRef
Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Krosnick, J. A., Visser, P. S., & Boninger, D. S. (2005). Attitude importance and the accumulation of attitude-relevant knowledge in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 749–769. CrossRef
Holbrook, A. L., Sterrett, D., Johnson, T. P., & Krysan, M. (2016). Racial disparities in political participation across issues: The role of issue-specific motivators. Political Behavior, 38(1), 1–32. CrossRef
Hurley, P. A., & Hill, K. Q. (2003). Beyond the demand-input model: A theory of representational linkages. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 304–326. CrossRef
Hutchings, V. L. (2001). Political context, issue salience, and selective attentiveness: Constituent knowledge of the Clarence Thomas confirmation vote. The Journal of Politics, 63(3), 846–868. CrossRef
Iyengar, S. (1990). Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In information and democratic processes. (pp. 160–195).
Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186–200. CrossRef
Jackson, J. E. (1980). Analysis of pilot study issue questions. ANES Pilot Study Report (No. nes002236), 1–42. http://www.electionstudies.org/Library/papers/documents/nes002236.pdf.
Johns, R. (2010). Measuring issue salience in british elections: Competing interpretations of ‘most important issue’. Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 143–158. CrossRef
Kirkland, P. A., & Coppock, A. (2017). Candidate choice without party labels: New insights from conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9414-8.
Krosnick, J. A. (1988a). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 240–255. CrossRef
Krosnick, J. A. (1988b). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 196–210. CrossRef
Krosnick, J. A. 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12(1), 59–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/586285.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21(1), 81–106. CrossRef
Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Lecheler, S., de Vreese, C., & Slothuus, R. (2009). Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Communication Research, 36(3), 400–425. CrossRef
Leeper, T. J. (2014). The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 27–46. CrossRef
Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821–837. CrossRef
Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maggiotto, M. A., & Piereson, J. E. (1978). Issue publics and voter choice. American Politics Quarterly, 6, 407–429. CrossRef
Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 672–685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938743.
Miller, J. M., Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2017). The origins of policy issue salience: Personal and national importance impact on behavioral, cognitive, and emotional issue engagement. In J. A. Krosnick, I. C. A. Chiang, & T. H. Stark (Eds.), Political psychology: New explorations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Miller, J. M., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 847–867. CrossRef
Niemi, R. G., & Bartels, L. M. (1985). New measures on issue salience: An evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 47(4), 1212–1220. CrossRef
Page, B. I., & Brody, R. A. (1972). Policy voting and the electoral process: the Vietnam war issue. The American Political Science Review, 66(3), 979–995. CrossRef
Peterson, E. (2017). The role of the information environment in partisan voting. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1191–1204. CrossRef
Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626. CrossRef
Pew Research Center. (2017). Americans express increasingly warm feelings toward religious groups.
Price, V., David, C., Goldthorpe, B., Roth, M. M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). Locating the issue public: The multi-dimensional nature of engagement with health care reform. Political Behavior, 28(1), 33–63. CrossRef
Rabinowitz, G., Prothro, J. W., & Jacoby, W. (1982). Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 44(1), 41–63. CrossRef
Spoon, J. J., & Klüver, H. (2014). Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies, 35, 48–60. CrossRef
Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2008). Candidate positioning and voter choice. The American Political Science Review, 102(3), 303–318. CrossRef
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Simmons, J. P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: A new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 118–141. CrossRef
- More Important, but for What Exactly? The Insignificant Role of Subjective Issue Importance in Vote Decisions
Thomas J. Leeper
- Springer US
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6687
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia