Suchergebnisse

Past research has shown that issues vary significantly in their salience across citizens, explaining key outcomes in political behavior. Yet it remains unclear how individual-level differences in issue salience affect the measurement of latent constructs in public opinion, namely political ideology. In this paper, we test whether scaling approaches that fail to incorporate individual-level differences in issue salience could understate the predictive power of ideology in public opinion research. To systematically examine this assertion, we employ a series of latent variable models which incorporate both issue importance and issue position. We compare the results of these different and diverse scaling approaches to two survey data sets, investigating the implications of accounting for issue salience in constructing latent measures of ideology. Ultimately, we find that accounting for issue importance adds little information to a more basic approach that uses only issue positions, suggesting ideological signals for measurement models reside most prominently in the issue positions of individuals rather than the importance of those issues to the individual.

Abstract
A long-standing argument is that policy voting is more likely on issues the voter considers subjectively important. However, existing evidence is highly mixed. We leverage panel data from the 2008–2009 ANES Panel to investigate the relationship between subjective issue importance and a key mechanism thought to link it and policy voting: candidate knowledge. Using both lagged dependent variable and fixed-effect models, we find little evidence that subjective issue importance predicts candidate knowledge or learning. Our results suggest that one reason for lack of consensus about whether subjective issue importance moderates policy voting is the lack of a clear connection between it and this important mediator. Our results point to the need for stronger measures of subjective issue importance.

Based on their different conceptualizations of the processes evoked by role playing and issue importance in the induction of attitude change, cognitive dissonance, incentive, and social judgment theories make competing predictions on the relative effectiveness of role playing and passive exposure as a junction of issue importance. The experiment utilized a 3 × 2 design having control, passive-exposure, and role-playing conditions with low and high levels of issue importance. Planned comparisons of means in the cells expected to register maximal and minimal changes in attitudes under each theory provided little support for the dissonance position and fairly credible, though somewhat overlapping, evidence for incentive and social judgment theories. Other comparisons indicated that improvised role playing produced more change than did passive exposure only for the high- importance issue.

AbstractAre cues from party leaders so important that they can cause individuals to change their own issue positions to align with the party's position? Recent work on the importance of party cues suggests they do, especially given the literature on partisanship as a strong and persistent group identity. However, in this paper we test the limits of those partisan cues. Using a unique two-wave panel survey design we find that the effect of party cues is moderated by the prior level of importance individuals place on an issue. We find that when a person believes an issue area to be more important, party cues are less likely to move that citizen's position, particularly when the cue goes against partisan ideological norms. Our results show evidence that an individual's own issue positions—at least the important ones—can be resilient in the face of party cues.

A growing amount of research is devoted to the question of which individual and contextual variables enhance, limit, or obliterate news framing effects. However, the fundamental question whether framing effects vary depending on the issue at stake has not been addressed. Based on two experimental studies (total N = 1,821), this article investigates the extent to which framing effects differ in magnitude as well as process, depending on how important an issue is. The studies show that a high-importance issue yields no effects and a low-importance issue large effects. This moderating function of issue importance operates both at the contextual and at the individual levels. The implications for future framing effects research are discussed.

This article examines the dynamics of vote redistribution after new party entry in the context of East European democracies. Contrary to the dominant institutional and sociological approaches, the author focuses on the (strategic) policy choices of the new contestants. The author argues that a new party's choice about where to place itself in relation to existing parties and which issues to emphasize can determine its electoral success or failure. Aggregate and individual-level analyses confirm this argument. The findings underline the importance of policy-based party competition in the region. As a broader theoretical contribution, the study underscores the relevance of issue importance, and not just party issue positions, in political competition.

This article examines the dynamics of vote redistribution after new party entry in the context of East European democracies. Contrary to the dominant institutional and sociological approaches, the author focuses on the (strategic) policy choices of the new contestants. The author argues that a new party's choice about where to place itself in relation to existing parties and which issues to emphasize can determine its electoral success or failure. Aggregate and individual-level analyses confirm this argument. The findings underline the importance of policy-based party competition in the region. As a broader theoretical contribution, the study underscores the relevance of issue importance, and not just party issue positions, in political competition. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008.]

AbstractMeasuring how much citizens care about different policy issues is critical for political scientists, yet existing measurement approaches have significant limitations. We provide a new survey‐experimental, choice‐based approach for measuring the importance voters attach to different positional issues, including issues not currently contested by political elites. We combine information from (a) direct questions eliciting respondents' positions on different issues with (b) a conjoint experiment asking respondents to trade off departures from their preferred positions on those issues. Applying this method to study the relative importance of 34 issues in the United Kingdom, we show that British voters attach significant importance to issues like the death penalty that are not presently the subject of political debate and attach more importance to those issues associated with social liberal–conservative rather than economic left–right divisions.