IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v64y2020i3p519-535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Choice‐Based Measure of Issue Importance in the Electorate

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Hanretty
  • Benjamin E. Lauderdale
  • Nick Vivyan

Abstract

Measuring 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Hanretty & Benjamin E. Lauderdale & Nick Vivyan, 2020. "A Choice‐Based Measure of Issue Importance in the Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 519-535, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:3:p:519-535
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12470
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12470?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alvarez, R. Michael & Nagler, Jonathan & Bowler, Shaun, 2000. "Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The British 1987 General Election," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 131-149, March.
    2. Miratrix, Luke W. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S. & Theodoridis, Alexander G. & Campos, Luis F., 2018. "Worth Weighting? How to Think About and Use Weights in Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 275-291, July.
    3. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Smith, Daniel M. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "Measuring Voters’ Multidimensional Policy Preferences with Conjoint Analysis: Application to Japan’s 2014 Election," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 190-209, April.
    4. Justin Grimmer, 2013. "Appropriators not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 624-642, July.
    5. Jeffrey R. Lax & Justin H. Phillips, 2012. "The Democratic Deficit in the States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 148-166, January.
    6. John Bartle, 2000. "Political Awareness, Opinion Constraint and the Stability of Ideological Positions," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(3), pages 467-484, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandra Wankmüller, 2023. "A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-163, April.
    2. Zakharov, Alexei & Fantazzini, Dean, 2009. "Economic Factors in a Model of Voting: The Case of The Netherlands, Great Britain, and Israel," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 14(2), pages 57-73.
    3. John Bartle, 2005. "Homogeneous Models and Heterogeneous Voters," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(4), pages 653-675, December.
    4. Fowler, Anthony & Hall, Andrew B., 2015. "Congressional seniority and pork: A pig fat myth?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PA), pages 42-56.
    5. Hurst, Yolander G. & Nation, Denise D., 2009. "The impact of race on criminal justice ideology: An examination of high school students," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 534-541, November.
    6. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    7. Charles J Pattie & Ron J Johnston, 2002. "Political Talk and Voting: Does it Matter to Whom One Talks?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(6), pages 1113-1135, June.
    8. Motta, Matt & Callaghan, Timothy & Trujillo, Kristin Lunz, 2022. "“The CDC Won’t Let Me Be.” The Opinion Dynamics of Support for CDC Regulatory Authority," SocArXiv pxrn3, Center for Open Science.
    9. Bruch, Nils & Knodt, Michèle & Ringel, Marc, 2024. "Advocating harder soft governance for the European Green Deal. Stakeholder perspectives on the revision of the EU governance regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    10. Michael S Evans, 2014. "A Computational Approach to Qualitative Analysis in Large Textual Datasets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    11. Simon Munzert & Sebastian Ramirez-Ruiz & Başak Çalı & Lukas F. Stoetzer & Anita Gohdes & Will Lowe, 2022. "Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Andrea Junqueira & Thiago N. Silva & Guy D. Whitten, 2023. "What about us? Political competition, economic performance, immigration, and nativist appeals," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 11-24, January.
    13. Young, Linda J & Rater, Barbara R, 2021. "The Farm Producer Survey: Unit and Item Nonresponse," NASS Research Reports 327249, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    14. Facchini, Giovanni & Hatton, Timothy J. & Steinhardt, Max F., 2024. "Opening Heaven’s Door: Public Opinion and Congressional Votes on the 1965 Immigration Act," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 232-270, March.
    15. Bhattacharya, Kaushik, 2011. "Strategic Entry and the Relationship between Number of Independent and Non-Independent Candidates: A Study of Parliamentary Elections in India," MPRA Paper 46069, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2012.
    16. Iskander De Bruycker & Anne Rasmussen, 2021. "Blessing or Curse for Congruence? How Interest Mobilization Affects Congruence between Citizens and Elected Representatives," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 909-928, July.
    17. Gary Mucciaroni & Kathleen Ferraiolo & Meghan E. Rubado, 2019. "Framing morality policy issues: state legislative debates on abortion restrictions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 171-189, June.
    18. van den Oever, Koen, 2017. "Uncharted waters : A behavioral approach to when, why and which organizational changes are adopted," Other publications TiSEM 0136c8c2-ecdd-4f82-8ca7-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Matsusaka, John G., 2017. "When Do Legislators Follow Constituent Opinion? Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes," Working Papers 264, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    20. Ranjbar, Setareh & Salvati, Nicola & Pacini, Barbara, 2023. "Estimating heterogeneous causal effects in observational studies using small area predictors," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:64:y:2020:i:3:p:519-535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.