Public Choice

, Volume 175, Issue 1–2, pp 155–179 | Cite as

The effect of valence and ideology in campaign conversion: panel evidence from three Spanish general elections

  • Enrique García-ViñuelaEmail author
  • Ignacio Jurado
  • Pedro Riera


This paper studies changes in voting preferences over election campaigns. Building on the literature on spatial models and valence issues, we study whether (1) ideological distance to political parties, (2) assessments of party competence to handle different policy issues, and (3) voter-updated candidate evaluations are factors that explain shifts in voter choices in the weeks preceding the election. To test our hypotheses, we use data from three survey panels conducted for the 2008, 2011 and 2015 Spanish general elections. Our findings show that valence factors are more influential than ideological indifference to account for campaign conversion.


Valence politics Spatial models Election campaigns Conversion effect SPAIN Panel analysis 

JEL Classification

D 72 



We thank the journal’s editors and reviewers for helpful comments. We are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for financial support through grant CSO2013-40870-R.

Supplementary material

11127_2018_522_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. Alvarez, M., & Shankster, A. (2006). Studying statewide political campaigns. In H. Brady & R. Johnson (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects (pp. 307–335). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarized the electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the Electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bean, C., & Mughan, A. (1989). Leadership effects in parliamentary elections in Australia and Britain. American Political Science Review, 83, 1165–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélanger, E., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice. Electoral Studies, 27, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bosch, A., & Rico, G. (2003). Leadreship effects in regional elections: The Catalan case. Barcelona: Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, D., & Ranney, A. (1992). Electoneering: A comparative study of continuity and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, D., & Stokes, D. (1969). Political change in Britain. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. E. (2000). The American campaign: US Presidential campaign and the national vote. College Station: Texas A & M Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, A., Converse, Ph, Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carey, J., & Shugart, M. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote. Electoral Studies, 14, 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carsey, Th M, & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, H., Sanders, D., Stewart, M., & Whitely, P. (2004). Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clinton, J., & Lapinski, J. (2004). ‘Targeted’ advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 Presidential election. Journal of Politics, 66, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of believe systems in mass publics. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  17. Costa Lobo, M., & Curtice, J. (2014). Personality Politics? The role of leader evaluations in democratic elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curtice, J., & Holmberg, S. (2005). Party leadres and party choice. In J. Thomassen (Ed.), The European voter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dalton, R. (1996). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. London: Clatham House.Google Scholar
  20. Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (2000). Partisans without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dassonneville, R., & Hooghe, M. Forthcoming. Indifference and alienation: Diverging dimensions of electoral dealignment in Europe. Acta Politica.Google Scholar
  22. De Sio, L., & Weber, T. (2014). Issue Yield: A model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review, 108, 870–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  24. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Finkel, S. (1993). Reexamining the ‘minimal effects’ model in Presidential electoral campaigns. Journal of Politic, s, 55, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Finkel, S., & Schrott, P. (1995). Campaign effects on voter choice in the German election of 1990. British Journal of Political Scienc, e, 23, 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fourier, P. (2006). The impact of campaigns on discrepancies, errors an biases in voting behavior. In H. Brady & R. Johnson (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects (pp. 45–77). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Franklin, M., Mackie, Th, & Valen, H. (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in western countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Franz, M., & Rideout, T. (2007). Does political advertising persuade? Political Behavior, 29, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gallego, A., & Rodden, J. (2016). The weight of issues: Cross-pressured voters in the United States. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  31. García Viñuela, E. (2013). Los efectos de la campaña para las elecciones generales españolas de 201. Cuadernos Económicos de ICE, 85, 105–121.Google Scholar
  32. García-Viñuela, E., Jurado, I., & Riera, P. (2016). Allocating campaign effort in Spain: Evidence from four general elections. South European Society and Politics, 21, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaigns polls so variable when voters are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerber, A., & Green, D. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gosnell, H. (1950). Does campaigning make a difference? The Public Opinion Quarterl, y, 14, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greene, K. (2011). Campaign persuasion and nascent partisanship in Mexico’s New Democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hillygus, S. (2005). Campaign effects and the dynamics of turnout intention in election 2000. Journal of Politics, 67, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hillygus, S., & Shields, T. (2009). The persuadable voter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Holbrook, Th, & McClurg, S. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout and electoral competition in US presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Issenberg, S. (2012). The victory lab: The secret science of winning campaigns. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  41. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jamieson, K. (2001). Everything you think you know about politics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Kam, C. (2006). Political campaigns and open-minded thinking. The Journal of Politics, 68, 931–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Killian, M., & Wilcox, C. (2008). Do abortion attitudes lead to party switching? Political Research Quarterly, 6, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lago, I., & Martínez i Coma, F. (2013). Apuntes sobre el estudio del comportamiento electoral en España. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 161, 69–91.Google Scholar
  46. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential election. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (2012). Who votes now? Demographics, issues, inequality and turnout in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mair, P. (2005). Democracy beyond Parties. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  50. Martínez i Coma, F. (2008). Por qué importan las campañas electorales. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.Google Scholar
  51. McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In R. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. McCann, J., & Lawson, Ch. (2006). Presidential campaigns and the knowledge gap in three transitional democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McClurg, S., & Holbrook, Th. (2009). Living in a battleground: Presidential campaigns and fundamental predictors of vote choice. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mughan, A. (2000). Media and the presidentialization of parliamentary elections. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Norris, P. (Eds.). (1999). The growth of critical citizens? In Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Orriols, L., & Cordero, G. (2016). The breakdown of the Spanish two-party system: The upsurge of Podemos and Ciudadanos in the 2015 general election. South European Society and Politics, 21, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. (2000). Dissaffected democracies: What is troubling the trilateral countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Popkin, S. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in Presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rico, G. (2009). Líderes políticos, opinión pública y comportamiento electoral en España. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.Google Scholar
  61. Rodon, T. (2016). Does Space Matter? Explaining Abstention because of Indifference and Alienation. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  62. Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2011). Downs, stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice. British Journal of Political Science, 4, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scarrow, S., Dalton, R., & Wattenberg, M. (2000). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Shaw, D. (1999). The methods behind the madness: Presidential Electoral College strategies, 1986-96. Journal of Politics, 61, 893–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simon, A. (2002). The winning message. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stewart, M., & Clarke, H. (1992). The (un)importance of party leaders: Leader images and party choice in the 1987 British election. Journal of Politics, 54, 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stone, W. J., & Simas, E. N. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swanson, D. L., & Mancini, P. (1996). Politics, media and modern democracy: An international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  70. Whiteley, P., & Seyd, P. (2003). Party election campaigning in Britain: The Labour Party. Party Politics, 9, 637–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Willmann, J. E. (2011). Cross-pressured partisans: how voters make up their minds when parties and issues diverge. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference (Reykjavik) 08/2011.Google Scholar
  72. Zaller, J. (1991). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Zaller, J. (2004). Floating voters in US presidential elections, 1948–2000. Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, non-attitudes, measurement error, and change, 166–212.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique García-Viñuela
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ignacio Jurado
    • 2
  • Pedro Riera
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.University of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Universidad Carlos IIIMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations