Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-qn7h5 Total loading time: 0.705 Render date: 2022-09-28T22:38:41.456Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2014

Abstract

Most formal models of valence competition add a single, separable and unweighted component to the standard one-dimensional utility function of voters. This article presents the results of a conjoint analysis experiment in which respondents were asked to choose between two candidates whose profiles vary along five attributes. Four of these traits behave like valence or policy issues as expected, but one, which has been employed in recent formal and empirical works, does not. Moreover, policy and valence are not separable. They interact at least in some cases, taking a competency form whereby the marginal impact of valence on voters’ choice is conditional on candidates’ policies. This result lends support to recent studies that have found more extensive valence voting under ideological convergence. Finally, policy trumps valence in awkward choices. Respondents even prefer corrupt candidates with similar policy views to honest ones with different opinions, despite integrity being declared the most important attribute.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2014 

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

Fabio Franchino and Francesco Zucchini are Associate Professors of Political Science, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Conservatorio 7, Milan, 20122, Italy (fabio.franchino@unimi.it, francesco.zucchini@unimi.it). This article has greatly benefitted from presentations at the 71st Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association (Chicago, April 2013), the 3rd Annual Conference of the European Political Science Association (Barcelona, June 2013) and at the seminar series of the Department of Social and Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano. The authors would like to thank Luigi Curini, Walter R. Mebane, Guy D. Whitten and the reviewers of PSRM for their useful comments, and Alessandra Caserini of the Opinion Polls Laboratory (Laboratorio Indagini Demoscopiche, Università degli Studi di Milano), for research assistance. Supplementary material is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.24.

References

Adams, James, and Merrill, Samuel III. 2009. ‘Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model’. British Journal of Political Science 39(3):539558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel III, Simas, Elizabeth N., and Stone, Walter J.. 2011. ‘When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model with Applications to Congressional Elections’. The Journal of Politics 73(1):1730.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2000. ‘Economic Voting and Political Context: a Comparative Perspective’. Electoral Studies 19(2–3):151170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2000. ‘Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models’. Public Choice 103(3/4):327336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2002. ‘Mixed Equilibrium in a Downsian Model with a Favored Candidate’. Journal of Economic Theory 103(1):131161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2004. ‘The Effect of Candidate Quality on Electoral Equilibrium: An Experimental Study’. American Political Science Review 98(1):7790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2013. ‘Party Systems and Political Change in Europe’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 29 August 29–1 September, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric, and Meguid, Bonnie M.. 2008. ‘Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice’. Electoral Studies 27(3):477491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephen. 1997. ‘An Economic Model of Representative Democracy’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(1):85114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. ‘Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses’. Political Analysis 14(1):6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald. 1969. Political Change in Britain: Basis of Electoral Choice. 2nd Revised edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K., and Stone, Walter J.. 2012. ‘Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections’. The Journal of Politics 74(3):870887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, Francesco, and Morelli, Massimo. 2004. ‘Bad Politicians’. Journal of Public Economics 88(3-4):759782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanheira, Micael, Crutzen, Benoît, and Sahuguet, Nicolas. 2010. ‘The Impact of Party Organization on Electoral Outcomes’. Revue Économique 61(4):677695.Google Scholar
Clark, Michael. 2009. ‘Valence and Electoral Outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998’. Electoral Studies 28(1):111122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael, and Leiter, Debra. 2014. ‘Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies’. Comparative Political Studies 47(2):171202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 2011. ‘Political Economy Models of Elections’. Annual Review of Political Science 14(1):311330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1982. ‘Nonspatial Candidate Characteristics and Electoral Competition’. Journal of Politics 44(1):115130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2010. Eurobarometer 74.2, November – December.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1999. ‘Electoral Accountability and Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types Versus Sanctioning Poor Performance’. In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, edited by Adam Przeworski, Susan C Stokes, and Bernard Manin, 5597. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1975. Representatives, Roll Calls and Constituencies: A Decision-Theoretic Analysis. Fallbrook, CA: Aero Publishers.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P.. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1996. ‘The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations: An Experimental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits’. Political Behavior 18(1):124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L. 1999. ‘Bringing the Candidate into Models of Candidate Evaluation’. The Journal of Politics 61(3):700702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2011. ‘Competing on Good Politicians’. American Political Science Review 105(1):7999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galeotti, Fabio, and Zizzo, Daniel John. 2014. ‘Competence Versus Trustworthiness: What Do Voters Care About?’ SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2408914. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Green, Jane, and Hobolt, Sara B.. 2008. ‘Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections’. Electoral Studies 27(3):460476.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E., Krieger, Abba M., and Wind, Yoram. 2001. ‘Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects’. Interfaces 31(3):S56S73.Google Scholar
Green, Paul E., and Rao, Vithala R.. 1971. ‘Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data’. Journal of Marketing Research 8(3):355363.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2001. ‘A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 45(4):862886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2007. ‘“One and a Half Dimensional” Preferences and Majority Rule’. Social Choice and Welfare 28(2):321335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2012. ‘The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes Toward Immigrants’. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2106116. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. ‘Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments’. Political Analysis 22(1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, David A., Rose, John M., and Greene, William H.. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael C. 1997. Analytical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert P. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulisheck, Michael R., and Mondak, Jeffery J. 1996. ‘Candidate Quality and the Congressional Vote: A Causal Connection?Electoral Studies 15(2):237253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, Dean. 2001. ‘A Theory of Nonseparable Preferences in Survey Responses’. American Journal of Political Science 45(2):239258.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Nadeau, Richard, and Elias, Angelo. 2008. ‘Economics, Party, and the Vote: Causality Issues and Panel Data’. American Journal of Political Science 52(1):8495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londregan, John, and Romer, Thomas. 1993. ‘Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote’. In Political Economy: Institutions, Competition and Representation, edited by William A. Barnett, Norman Schofield, and Melvin Hinich, 355377. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, and Tukey, John W.. 1964. ‘Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement’. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1(1):127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattozzi, Andrea, and Merlo, Antonio. 2008. ‘Political Careers or Career Politicians?Journal of Public Economics 92(3–4):597608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCurley, Carl, and Mondak, Jeffery J.. 1995. ‘Inspected by #1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents’ Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 39(4):864885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messner, Matthias, and Polborn, Mattias K.. 2004. ‘Paying Politicians’. Journal of Public Economics 88(12):24232445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Huckfeldt, Robert. 2006. ‘The Accessibility and Utility of Candidate Character in Electoral Decision Making’. Electoral Studies 25(1):2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger B. 1993. ‘Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-Theoretic Analysis’. Games and Economic Behavior 5(1):118132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Harvey D., and Whitten, Guy D.. 2000. ‘Government Competence, Economic Performance and Endogenous Election Dates’. Electoral Studies 19(2–3):413426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardos-Prado, Sergi. 2012. ‘Valence beyond Consensus: Party Competence and Policy Dispersion from a Comparative Perspective’. Electoral Studies 31(2):342352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghavarao, Damaraju, Wiley, James B., and Chitturi, Pallavi. 2010. Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Models and Designs. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2003. ‘Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(4):371383.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2007. ‘The Mean Voter Theorem: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Convergent Equilibrium’. The Review of Economic Studies 74(3):965980.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’. The American Political Science Review 57(2):368377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. ‘Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 54(2):371388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Franchino & Zucchini Datasets

Link
Supplementary material: File

Franchino and Zucchini Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Franchino and Zucchini Supplementary Material(File)
File 220 KB
48
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.

Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates
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.

Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates
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.

Voting in a Multi-dimensional Space: A Conjoint Analysis Employing Valence and Ideology Attributes of Candidates
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? *