Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-lkdxh Total loading time: 0.213 Render date: 2021-05-08T11:42:39.368Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion Using a Hierarchical Group-Level IRT Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Devin Caughey
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139-4301, USA
Christopher Warshaw
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139-4301, USA, e-mail: cwarshaw@mit.edu
Corresponding

Abstract

Over the past eight decades, millions of people have been surveyed on their political opinions. Until recently, however, polls rarely included enough questions in a given domain to apply scaling techniques such as IRT models at the individual level, preventing scholars from taking full advantage of historical survey data. To address this problem, we develop a Bayesian group-level IRT approach that models latent traits at the level of demographic and/or geographic groups rather than individuals. We use a hierarchical model to borrow strength cross-sectionally and dynamic linear models to do so across time. The group-level estimates can be weighted to generate estimates for geographic units. This framework opens up vast new areas of research on historical public opinion, especially at the subnational level. We illustrate this potential by estimating the average policy liberalism of citizens in each U.S. state in each year between 1972 and 2012.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

Authors' note: We are grateful to Kevin Quinn, Simon Jackman, and Teppei Yamamoto for their advice on the model derivation and validation, and to Bob Carpenter and Alex Storer for their assistance with coding and computation. We also received excellent feedback from Stephen Jessee, Bob Erikson, Mike Alvarez, John Jackson, and others at PolMeth 2013. Adam Berinsky, Eric Schickler, and Tom Clark were kind enough to share their data with us. We appreciate the research assistance of Stephen Brown, Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, and Melissa Meek. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review 95(3): 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2008. The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 102(2): 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, David A., Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2014. Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C. 2010. Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress. American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael. 2001. Ideal Point Estimation with a Small Number of Votes: A Random-Effects Approach. Political Analysis 9(3): 192210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L. 1998. Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K., and Highton, Benjamin. 2013. How Does Multilevel Regression and Poststratification Perform with Conventional National Surveys? Political Analysis 21(4): 449–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2014. Replication Data for: Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion from Sparse Survey Data Using a Group-Level IRT Model. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/27899. Dataverse [Distributor] V1 [Version].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James A. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, Peter K., and Koch, Julianna. 2013. Public Opinion in the U.S. States: 1956 to 2010. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(3): 349–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P. 2006. Public Opinion in the States: A Quarter Century of Change and Stability. In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. Cohen, Jeffrey E., 229–53. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J. 2008. Political Polarization in the American Public, Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Jean-Paul. 2010. Bayesian Item Response Modeling: Theory and Applications. New York: Springer (PDF ebook).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Jean-Paul, and Glas, Cees A. W. 2001. Bayesian Estimation of a Multilevel IRT Model Using Gibbs Sampling. Psychometrika 66(2): 271–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2007. Prior Distributions for Variance Parameters in Hierarchical Models. Bayesian Analysis 1(3): 515–33.Google Scholar
Ghitza, Yair, and Gelman, Andrew. 2013. Deep Interactions with MRP: Election Turnout and Voting Patterns among Small Electoral Subgroups. American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 762–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Matthew D., and Gelman, Andrew. Forthcoming. The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research.Google Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2005. Pooling the Polls over an Election Campaign. Australian Journal of Political Science 40(4): 499517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2009. Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Gareth, Witten, Trevor Hastie, Daniela, and Tibshirani, Robert. 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning. New York: Springer (PDF ebook).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election. American Political Science Review 103(1): 5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Georgia. 2009. Giving Order to Districts: Estimating Voter Distributions with National Election Returns. Political Analysis 17(3): 215–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H. 2009. How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in The States? American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S., Pope, Jeremy C., and Jackman, Simon D. 2008. Measuring District-Level Partisanship with Implications for the Analysis of US Elections. Journal of Politics 70(3): 736–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B. 2001. Estimating Voter Preference Distributions from Individual-Level Voting Data. Political Analysis 9(3): 275–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzer, Drew A. 2013. Dynamic Bayesian Forecasting of Presidential Elections in the States. Journal of the American Statistical Association 108(501): 124–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGann, Anthony J. 2014. Estimating the Political Center from Aggregate Data: An Item Response Theory Alternative to the Stimson Dyad Ratios Algorithm. Political Analysis 22(1): 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, Robert J. 1983. Item Response Models for Grouped Data. Journal of Educational Statistics 8(4): 271–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, David K., Gelman, Andrew, and Bafumi, Joseph. 2004. Bayesian Multilevel Estimation with Poststratification: State-Level Estimates from National Polls. Political Analysis 12(4): 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Jong Hee. 2012. A Unified Method for Dynamic and Cross-Sectional Heterogeneity: Introducing Hidden Markov Panel Models. American Journal of Political Science 56(4): 1040–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org/.Google ScholarPubMed
Ruggles, Steven J., Alexander, Trent, Genadek, Katie, Goeken, Ronald, Schroeder, Matthew B., and Sobek, Matthew. 2010. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Stan Development Team. Stan: A C++ Library for Probability and Sampling, Version 1.3. http://mc-stan.org/.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2012. On the Meaning & Measurement of Mood. Daedalus 141(4): 2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures and Cities. Journal of Politics 75(2): 330–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warshaw, Christopher, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2012. How Should We Measure District-Level Public Opinion on Individual Issues? Journal of Politics 74(1): 203–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J., and Katznelson, Ira. 2013. Designing Historical Social Scientific Inquiry: How Parameter Heterogeneity Can Bridge the Methodological Divide between Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 526–46.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Caughey and Warshaw supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Caughey and Warshaw supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1 MB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion Using a Hierarchical Group-Level IRT Model
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion Using a Hierarchical Group-Level IRT Model
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion Using a Hierarchical Group-Level IRT Model
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *