Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

  • Neil Malhotra (a1) and Alexander Tahk (a2)


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.


Corresponding author

e-mail: (corresponding author)


Hide All

Authors' note: We thank Jon Krosnick, Daniel Schneider, Jonathan Wand, Jeff Grynaviski, Wendy Tam Cho, the editors, and anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback.



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

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

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

  • Neil Malhotra (a1) and Alexander Tahk (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.