Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T18:12:03.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE ,
JONATHAN RODDEN  and
JAMES M. SNYDER JR.
STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JONATHAN RODDEN*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
JAMES M. SNYDER JR.*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*
Stephen Ansolabehere is Professor, Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building E53, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139 (sda@mit.edu).
Jonathan Rodden is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, 616 Serra Street, Encina Hall West, Room 444C, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 (jrodden@stanford.edu), to whom correspondence should be addressed.
James M. Snyder, Jr., is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building E53, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139 (millett@mit.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A venerable supposition of American survey research is that the vast majority of voters have incoherent and unstable preferences about political issues, which in turn have little impact on vote choice. We demonstrate that these findings are manifestations of measurement error associated with individual survey items. First, we show that averaging a large number of survey items on the same broadly defined issue area—for example, government involvement in the economy, or moral issues—eliminates a large amount of measurement error and reveals issue preferences that are well structured and stable. This stability increases steadily as the number of survey items increases and can approach that of party identification. Second, we show that once measurement error has been reduced through the use of multiple measures, issue preferences have much greater explanatory power in models of presidential vote choice, again approaching that of party identification.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 215 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan, and Saunders, Kyle. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” Journal of Politics 60, 3 (August): 634–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69 (Dec.): 1218–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1983. “Toward Theories of Political Data.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, A.W.. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M. Jr., 2006. “Purple America.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (Spring): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D. E., and Stokes, D.. 1974. Political Change in Britain. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Miller, Warren, Converse, Philip, and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” American Political Science Review 96 (March): 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and James, A. Stimson. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (March): 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, D. E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1980. “Comment: Rejoinder to Judd and Milburn.” American Sociological Review 45 (August): 644– 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLa O, Ana La O, Ana, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2008. “Does Religion Distract the Poor? Income and Issue Voting Around the World.” Comparative Political Studies 41, 4/5 (April/May): 437–76.Google Scholar
DelliCarpini, Michael X Carpini, Michael X, and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1978. “Analyzing One-Variable Three Wave Panel Data: A Comparison of Two Models.” Political Methodology 5 (2): 151–61.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1979. “The SRC Panel Data and Mass Political Attitudes.” British Journal of Political Science 9 (Jan.): 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Tedin, Kent. 2007. American Public Opinion: Its Origin, Content, and Impact. 7th ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C.. 1993. “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, 5th ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, Heath, Anthony, and Lalljee, Mansur. 1996. “Measuring Left-Right and Libertarian-Authoritarian Values in the British Electorate.” British Journal of Sociology 47 (March): 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1988. “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: the Role of Core Beliefs and Values.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (May): 416–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1989. “Measuring Issue Preferences: The Problem of Response Instability.” Political Analysis 1 (1): 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, and Peterson, Paul. 1998. The New American Democracy. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul. 1997. “Political Expertise and Issue Voting in Presidential Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 50: 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Citrin, Jack. 1994. “Measurement Error and the Structure of Attitudes: Are Positive and Negative Judgments Opposites?” American Journal of Political Science 38, 1 (Feb.): 256–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1994. “How Stable is Party Identification?” Political Behavior 16, 4 (Dec.): 437–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Anthony, Evans, Geoffrey, and Martin, Jean. 1994. “The Measurement of Core Beliefs and Values: The Development of Balanced Socialist/Laissez Faire and Libertarian/Authoritarian Scales.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (Jan.): 115–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, Jon, and Peffley, Mark. 1987 (Dec.). “How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model.” American Political Science Review 81: 1099–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1983. “The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 45 (Nov.): 840–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KentJennings, M. Jennings, M.. 1992. “Ideological Thinking Among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (Winter): 419–41.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., and Milburn, Michael A.. 1980. “The Structure of Attitude Systems in the General Public: Comparisons of Structural Equation Models.” American Sociological Review 45 (Aug.): 627–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In Handbook of Social Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomeplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation” American Political Science Review 95, 1 (March): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klepper, Steven, and Leamer, Edward E.. 1984. “Consistent Sets of Estimates for Regressions with Errors in All Variables.” Econometrica 52 (Jan.): 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuder, G. F., and Richardson, M. W.. 1937. “The Theory of the Estimator of Test Reliability.” Psychometrika 2 (Sept): 151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, L. M., and Novick, M. R.. 1968. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert C. 1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (Nov.): 856–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, and Zaller, John. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIver, John, and Carmines, Edward. 1981. Unidimensional Scaling Sage University Paper, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, 24.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, Adam N., and Jenkins, J. Craig. 2004. “Structuring Political Opinions: Attitude Consistency and Democratic Competence among the U.S. Mass Public.” Sociological Quarterly 45 (May): 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, Frederick. 1968. “Non-Sampling Errors.” In International Encyclopaedia of Statistics, Volume 1. ed. Kruskal, William and Tanur, Judith. New York: Crowell Collier and Macmillan, 208–29.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut, and Milton, Lodge. 1985. “The Difference between Attitutes and Nonattitudes in the Mass Public: Just Measurement?” American Journal of Political Science 29 (May): 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H.. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1982. “Changes in Americans' Policy Preferences, 1935–1979.” Public Opinion Quarterly 46 (Spring): 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W., and Wildavsky, Aaron. 2000. Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics. Tenth ed. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Saris, Willem, and Sniderman, Paul. 2004. Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul, and Piazza, Thomas. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, Paul. 1992. Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction Sage University Paper, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, 82.Google Scholar
Wiley, D. E., and Wiley, J. A.. 1970. “The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 35 (Feb.): 112–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.