Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T21:54:01.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the Effects of Paired Issue Statements on the Seven-Point Issue Scales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

William G. Jacoby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many recent empirical analyses of citizens' issue attitudes rely on the seven-point issue scales, which have been included in all of the biennial National Election Studies (NES) since 1968. The question format used to create these scales requires people to respond to two different issue statements simultaneously. While this approach has a number of practical advantages, it may also distort the measurement of issue attitudes in several ways. In order to examine this possibility, a 1990 South Carolina public-opinion survey had people respond to the separate issue statements. The empirical results lead to an optimistic assessment of the seven-point scales. People do seem to regard the paired issue statements in any of the seven-point questions as the opposite sides of a political controversy. This general conclusion has some important caveats: there are several distinct dimensions underlying citizens' issue judgments, and the degree of psychological distance between conflicting issue positions varies somewhat across issues. These findings have important implications for our understanding and measurement of citizens' issue attitudes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 5 , 1993 , pp. 61 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 

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. 1983. Political Attitudes in America. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69: 1218–31.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Niemi, Richard G., Rabinowitz, George, and Rohde, David W. 1982. “The Measurement of Public Opinion About Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats.” American Journal of Political Science 26: 391–414.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Sullivan, John L., and Borgida, Eugene. 1989. “Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates ‘Waltz Before a Blind Audience’?” American Political Science Review 83: 123–42.Google Scholar
Alwin, Duane F., and Krosnick, Jon R. 1991. “The Reliability of Survey Attitude Measurement: The Influence of Question and Respondent Attributes.” Sociological Methods and Research 20: 139–81.Google Scholar
Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. 1978. “Effects of Question Wording and Format on Political Attitude Consistency.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42: 81–92.Google Scholar
Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. 1982. “Effects of Presenting One Versus Two Sides of an Issue in Survey Questions .” Public Opinion Quarterly 46: 69–85.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard W. 1972. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Normal Vote Analysis of the 1968 Election.” American Political Science Review 66: 429–49.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1985. “The Perils of Survey Research: Inter-Personally Incomparable Responses.” Political Methodology 11: 269–91.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1989. “Factor and Ideal Point Analysis for Interpersonally Incomparable Data.” Psychometrika 54: 181–202.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1991. “Traits Versus Issues: Factor Versus Ideal-Point Analysis of Candidate Thermometer Ratings.” In Stimson, James A., ed., Political Analysis, Vol. 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Page, Benjamin I. 1972. “The Assessment of Policy Voting.” American Political Science Review 66: 450–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. Douglas. 1972. “Individual Differences and Multidimensional Scaling.” In Shepard, Roger N., Kimball Romney, A., Beth Nerlove, Sara, eds., Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences, Vol 1, Theory. New York: Seminar.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. M., Cleveland, W. S., Kleiner, B., and Tukey, P. A. 1983. Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Boston: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela J. 1984. “The Influence of Group Identification on Political Perception and Evaluation.” Journal of Politics 46: 760–85.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1984. “How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 95–126.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Apter, David E. ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1980. “Comment: Rejoinder to Judd and Milburn.” American Sociological Review 45: 644–46.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E., and Markus, Gregory B. 1979. “‘Plus ça Change …’ The New CPS Election Study Panel.” American Political Science Review 73: 2–49.Google Scholar
Fishbein, Martin, and Ajzen, Icek. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Linville, P. 1980. “What Does the Schema Concept Buy Us?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6: 543–57.Google Scholar
Free, Lloyd A., and Cantril, Hadley. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Hamill, Ruth C., Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick. 1985. “The Breadth, Depth, and Utility of Class, Partisan, and Ideological Schemata.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 850–70.Google Scholar
Herstein, John A. 1981. “Keeping the Voter's Limits in Mind: A Cognitive Process Analysis of Decision-Making in Voting.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 843–61.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1983. “The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 45: 840–86.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1988. “The Impact of Party Identification on Issue Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 643–61.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1990. “Variability in Issue Alternatives and American Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 52: 579–606.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991a. Data Theory and Dimensional Analysis. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991b. “Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 178–205.Google Scholar
Jones, Bryan D. 1974. “Some Considerations in the Use of Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling.” Political Methodology 1 (Fall): 1–30.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., and Milburn, Michael A. 1980. “The Structure of Attitude Systems in the General Public: Comparisons of a Structural Equation Model.” American Sociological Review 45: 627–43.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1983. “Diversity and Complexity in American Public Opinion.” In Finifter, Ada R., ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon R. 1991. “The Stability of Political Preferences: Comparisons of Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 547–76.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1962. Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Sears, David O., eds. 1986. Political Cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83: 399–419.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Tursky, Bernard. 1979. “Comparisons Between Category and Magnitude of Political Opinion Employing SRC/CPS Items.” American Political Science Review 73: 50–66.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory, and Converse, Philip E. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73: 1055–70.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Miller, Warren E., Raine, Alden S., and Brown, Thad H. 1976. “A Majority Party in Disarray: Policy Polarization in the 1972 Election.” American Political Science Review 70: 753–78.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1976. “The Cross-National Use of Party Identification as a Stimulus to Political Inquiry.” In Budge, Ian, Crewe, Ivor, and Farlie, Dennis, eds., Party Identification and Beyond. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Levitin, Teresa E. 1977. Leadership and Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., and Anderson, Kristi. 1974. “Mass Belief Systems Revisited: Political Change and Attitude Structure.” Journal of Politics 36: 541–91.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John. 1979. The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1970-71. “Wanted: Rules for Wording Structured Questionnaires.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 191–201.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut, and Lodge, Milton. 1985. “The Difference Between Attitudes and Nonattitudes in the Mass Public: Just Measurements?” American Journal of Political Science 29: 291–307.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Brody, Richard A. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66: 979–95.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C. 1979. Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73: 1071–90.Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark A., and Hurwitz, Jon. 1985. “A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 871–90.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., and Brock, T. C. 1981. Cognitive Responses to Persuasive Communications. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George B. 1973. Spatial Models of Electoral Competition. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Institute for Research in Social Science.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and MacDonald, Stuart E. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 737–57.Google Scholar
Roll, Charles W., and Cantril, Albert H. 1980. Polls: Their Use and Misuse in Politics. Cabin John, Md.: Seven Locks.Google Scholar
Scammon, Richard M., and Wattenberg, Ben J. 1970. The Real Majority. New York: Coward, McCann, Geoghegan.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley. 1977. “Question Wording as an Independent Variable in Survey Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Research 6: 151–70.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley. 1977-78. “Attitude Measurement and the Gun Control Paradox.” Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 427–38.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., Huddie, Leonie, and Schaffer, Lynitta G. 1986. “A Schematic Variant of Symbolic Politics Theory, as Applied to Racial and Gender Equality.” In Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O., eds., Political Cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., Lau, Richard R., Tyler, Tom R., and Allen, Harris M. Jr. 1980. “Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting.” American Political Science Review 74: 670–84.Google Scholar
Sharp, Carol, and Lodge, Milton. 1985. “Partisan and Ideological Belief Systems: Do They Differ?” Political Behavior 7: 147–66.Google Scholar
Steeper, Frederick T., and Teeter, Robert M. 1976. “Comment on ‘A Majority Party in Disarray’.” American Political Science Review 70: 806–13.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1975. “Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity and the 1972 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 19: 393–417.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States, Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley E., and Crocker, J. 1981. “Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing.” In Higgins, E. T., Herman, C. P., and Zanna, M. P., eds. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 1. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Rusk, Jerrold. 1970. “Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 64: 1167–85.Google Scholar
Wyckoff, Mikel L. 1987. “Issues of Measuring Ideological Sophistication: Levels of Conceptualization, Attitudinal Consistency, and Attitudinal Stability.” Political Behavior 9: 193–224.Google Scholar
Young, Forrest W., and Hamer, Robert M. 1987. Multidimensional Scaling: History, Theory, and Applications. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Young, Forrest W., and Lewyckyj, Rostyslaw. 1979. ALSCAL-4 User's Guide. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Data Analysis and Theory Associates.Google Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 579–616.Google Scholar