Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:37:57.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Question Wording and Macropartisanship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Michael B. MacKuen ,
Robert S. Erikson ,
James A. Stimson ,
Paul R. Abramson  and
Charles W. Ostrom Jr.
Michael B. MacKuen
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, St. Louis
Robert S. Erikson
Affiliation:
University of Houston
James A. Stimson
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Paul R. Abramson
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Charles W. Ostrom Jr.
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

MacKuen, Erikson and Stimson used quarterly Gallup poll data to show in this Review in 1989 that changing levels of macropartisanship, the two-party division of partisans, responded to presidential approval ratings and perceptions of the economy and predicted national election results. In a 1991 Review research note Abramson and Ostrom argued that the NES and GSS questions more commonly used by scholars generated macropartisanship measures less sensitive to short term factors and less predictive of election outcomes. In this Controversy, Erikson and Stimson respond to the challenge and present new data from CBS News and New York Times telephone surveys to buttress their earlier analyses, arguing against substantial effects of the different question wordings. Abramson and Ostrom explain their continuing reservations.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 475 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992 

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.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W. Jr., 1991. “Macropartisanship: An Empirical Reassessment.” American Poitical Science Review 85:181–92.10.2307/1962884Google Scholar
Borrelli, Stephen, Lockerbie, Brad, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1987. “Why the Democrat-Republican Partisanship Gap Varies from Poll to Poll.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51:115–19.10.1086/269019Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1976. The Dynamics of Party Support: Cohort-Analyzing Party Identification. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1990. “Of Artifacts and Partisan Instability.” American Journal of Political Science. 34:872–902.10.2307/2111402Google Scholar
Kohut, Andrew. 1991. “Questioning Party Identification.” Public Perspective 2(Sept.–Oct.):21–22.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 83:1125–42.10.2307/1961661Google Scholar
“Measuring Things: Gallup and Party ID.” 1991. Public Perspective 2(July–Aug.): 23–24.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1991. “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics.” American Political Science Review 85:557–68.10.2307/1963175Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1991. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Smith, Charles E. Jr., 1991. “The Influence of the Economy on Party Identification in the Reagan Years.” Journal of Politics 53:1077–92.10.2307/2131867Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C., Erikson, Robert S., and McIver, John P.. 1985. “Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 47:469–89.10.2307/2130892Google Scholar