Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-n4bck Total loading time: 0.394 Render date: 2022-08-16T13:08:03.875Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Impact of Party Cues on Manual Coding of Political Texts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2017

Abstract

Do coders of political texts incorporate prior beliefs about parties’ issue stances into their coding decisions? We report results from a coding experiment in which ten coders were each given 200 statements on immigration that were extracted from election manifestos. Party labels in these statements were randomly assigned (including a control category without party cues). Coders were more likely to code a statement as pro-immigration if it was attributed to the Greens and less likely choose the anti-immigration category if it was attributed to the populist radical right. No effect was found for mainstream parties of the center-left and center-right. The results also suggest that coders resort to party cues as heuristics when faced with ambiguous policy statements.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, Assistant Professor (laurenz.ennser@univie.ac.at) and Thomas M. Meyer, Assistant Professor (thomas.meyer@univie.ac.at), Department of Government, University of Vienna, Rooseveltplatz 3/1, 1090 Vienna. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.29

References

Benoit, Kenneth, Conway, Drew, Lauderdale, Benjamin E., Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2016. ‘Crowd-Sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data’. American Political Science Review 110(2):278295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Druckman, James N., and Cook, Fay L.. 2014. ‘The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion’. Political Behavior 36:235262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, and Giger, Nathalie. 2016. Strategic Ambiguity of Party Positions in Multiparty Competition. Political Science Research and Methods (FirstView).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, and Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. ‘Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:808822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dancey, Logan, and Sheagley, Geoff. 2013. ‘Heuristics Behaving Badly: Party Cues and Voter Knowledge’. American Journal of Political Science 57:312325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Däubler, Thomas, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava, and Laver, Michael. 2012. ‘Natural Sentences as Valid Units for Coded Political Texts’. British Journal of Political Science 42:937951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolezal, Martin, Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz, Müller, Wolfgang C., and Winkler, Anna K.. 2016. ‘Analyzing Manifestos in their Electoral Context a New Approach Applied to Austria, 2002–2008’. Political Science Research and Methods 4(3):641650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. ‘How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation’. American Political Science Review 107:5779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken, Shelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
Esuli, Andrea, and Sebastiani, Fabrizio. 2010. ‘Machines That Learn How to Code Open-Ended Survey Data’. International Journal of Market Research 52(6):775800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2016. Heuristics in Context. Political Science Research and Methods (FirstView).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul, Federico, Christopher M., and Kittilson, Miki C.. 2009. ‘Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):805820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, and Stewart, Brendan M.. 2013. ‘Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts’. Political Analysis 21(3):267297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. 2005. ‘Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences’. Political Behavior 27:163182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike, and Sagarzazu, Iñaki. 2016. ‘Setting the Agenda or Responding to Voters? Political Parties, Voters and Issue Attention’. West European Politics 39:380398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 2001. ‘When Parties and Candidates Collide: Citizen Perception of House Candidates’ Positions on Abortion’. Public Opinion Quarterly 65:121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. ‘Extracting Policy Positions From Political Texts Using Words as Data’. American Political Science Review 97:311331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Garry, John. 2000. ‘Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts’. American Journal of Political Science 44:619634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, Will, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2013. ‘Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark’. Political Analysis 21(3):298313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhaylov, Slava, Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2012. ‘Coder Reliability and Misclassification in the Human Coding of Party Manifestos’. Political Analysis 20:7891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nardulli, Peter F., Althaus, Scott L., and Hayes, Matthew. 2015. ‘A Progressive Supervised-Learning Approach to Generating Rich Civil Strife Data’. Sociological Methodology 45(1):148183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. ‘Polarizing Cues’. American Journal of Political Science 56:5266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael B., Skov, Martin, Serritzlew, Søren, and Ramsøy, Thomas. 2013. ‘Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues’. Political Behavior 35:831854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfarr, Christian, Schmid, Andreas, and Schneider, Udo. 2011. ‘Estimating Ordered Categorical Variables Using Panel Data: A Generalized Ordered Probit Model With an Autofit Procedure’. Journal of Economics and Econometrics 54:723.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2010. ‘Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches’. British Journal of Political Science 40:587611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Janell. 2016. ‘Michelle Obama Speech: How the First Lady Took Down Donald Trump Without Mentioning His Name’. Independent, 26 July 2016. Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michelle-obama-speech-donald-trump-dnc-2016-democrat-take-down-republican-a7156231.html, accessed 14 September 2017.Google Scholar
Rovny, Jan. 2012. ‘Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition’. European Union Politics 13(2):269292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovny, Jan. 2013. ‘Where Do Radical Right Parties Stand? Position Blurring in Multidimensional Competition’. European Political Science Review 5(1):126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarzazu, Iñaki, and Klüver, Heike. 2017. ‘Coalition Governments and Party Competition: Political Communication Strategies of Coalition Parties’. Political Science Research and Methods 5(2):333349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Daniel, Traber, Denise, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2017. ‘Estimating Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes’. Political Science Research and Methods 5(2):379396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2008. ‘A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts’. American Journal of Political Science 52:705722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer supplementary material

Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer supplementary material 1

Download Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer supplementary material(File)
File 327 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer Dataset

Link
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

The Impact of Party Cues on Manual Coding of Political Texts*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Impact of Party Cues on Manual Coding of Political Texts*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Impact of Party Cues on Manual Coding of Political Texts*
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? *