Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-fnzx6 Total loading time: 0.241 Render date: 2021-07-24T15:40:13.586Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Specification Issues in Assessing the Moderating Role of Issue Importance: A Comment on Grynaviski and Corrigan (2006)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Neil Malhotra
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305-7298
Alexander Tahk
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 110 North Hall, 1050 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706
Corresponding

Abstract

The empirical study of spatial issue voting has experienced a resurgence in recent years due to advances in data collection and research design. Grynaviski and Corrigan make several important contributions to this literature. In this note, we comment on one of Grynaviski and Corrigan's recommendations—to not include a main effect for issue importance when estimating models assessing the interactive relationship between importance and policy proximity. According to the authors, including the main importance term is incorrect because it is not necessary in representing a scale-invariant functional form under some assumptions and is insufficient under others. In deriving their reduced-form expression, the authors produce a model that is unintuitive and inappropriate for most data. Moreover, the restrictions Grynaviski and Corrigan impose on their model can produce perverse empirical predictions. We show that a model including main effect terms for importance is indeed scale invariant and that inclusion of the main importance term is necessary for scale invariance with respect to partial utility functions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2011. 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 thank Jon Krosnick, Daniel Schneider, Jonathan Wand, Jeff Grynaviski, Wendy Tam Cho, the editors, and anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback.

References

Aiken, Lenora S., and West, Stephen G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14: 6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Michael. 2001. Foundations of mathematical economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Griepentrog, Gary L., Michael Ryan, J., and Douglas Smith, L. 1982. Linear transformations of polynomial regression models. The American Statistician 36: 171–4.Google Scholar
Grynaviski, Jeffrey D., and Corrigan, Bryce E. 2006. Specification issues in proximity models of candidate evaluation (with issue importance). Political Analysis 14: 393420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review 103: 5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalandrakis, Tasos. 2010. Rationalizable voting. Theoretical Economics 5: 93125.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 2001. Sophistry versus science: On further efforts to rehabilitate the proximity model. Journal of Politics 63: 482500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel. 1995. Discriminating between the directional and proximity spatial models of electoral competition. Electoral Studies 14(3): 273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P. 2008. Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review 102: 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 2001. On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics 63: 436–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

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.

Specification Issues in Assessing the Moderating Role of Issue Importance: A Comment on Grynaviski and Corrigan (2006)
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.

Specification Issues in Assessing the Moderating Role of Issue Importance: A Comment on Grynaviski and Corrigan (2006)
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.

Specification Issues in Assessing the Moderating Role of Issue Importance: A Comment on Grynaviski and Corrigan (2006)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *