Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 209–223 | Cite as

Perceptions of candidates' issue positions

  • John R. Wright
  • Richard G. Niemi
Article

Abstract

Following Shively, we propose a theory to explain why voters perceive or fail to perceive candidates' issue positions. The theory presumes that there is a continuum of methods that range from those that are very inexpensive in time, energy, and experience (e.g., guessing) to those that are moderately expensive (e.g., partisanship) to those that are rather costly (e.g., extensive use of the media). All these factors are shown to play a part in the formation of candidate perceptions, but with variations between candidates in ways specified by the theory.

Keywords

Political Psychology Issue Position Candidate Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, John H., Richard G. Niemi, George Rabinowitz, and David W. Rohde (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
  2. Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde (1978). “Measuring Issue Positions: An Analysis of a Seven-Point Issue Scale.” Unpublished paper, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  3. Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  4. Frank, Ronald E., William F. Massy, and Donald G. Morrison (1965). “Bias in Multiple Discriminant Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 2:250–258.Google Scholar
  5. Holloway, Harry, and John George (1979).Public Opinion. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
  6. Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi (1981).Generations and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. McDonald, Michael D., and Susan E. Howell (1982). “Reconsidering the Reconceptualization of Party Identification.”Political Methodology 8:73–91.Google Scholar
  8. Markus, Gregory B., and Philip E. Converse (1979). “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Party Choice.”American Political Science Review. 73:1039–1054.Google Scholar
  9. Morrison, Donald G. (1969). “On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 6:156–163.Google Scholar
  10. Porter, Richard D. (1973). “On the Use of Survey Sample Weights in the Linear Model.”Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 2:141–158.Google Scholar
  11. Shively, W. Phillips (1979). “The Development of Party Identification Among Adults: Exploration of a Functional Model.”American Political Science Review 73:1039–1070.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Wright
    • 1
  • Richard G. Niemi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of RochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations