How Sophistication Affected The 2000 Presidential Vote: Traditional Sophistication Measures Versus Conceptualization
- 236 Downloads
The 2000 Presidential vote is modeled using voter sophistication as a source of heterogeneity. Three measures of sophistication are employed: education, knowledge, and the levels of conceptualization. Interacting them with vote predictors shows little meaningful variation. However, removing the assumption of ordinality from the levels of conceptualization uncovers considerable heterogeneity in the importance of the vote predictors in explaining the vote. Thus, different sophistication measures should not be treated as equivalent, nor combined as if they are equivalent. Few of the issue and candidate components are relevant to those with a less sophisticated understanding of politics. The opposite partisan attachments of the two most sophisticated groups suggest that sophistication’s impact on the vote can be confounded by partisanship.
KeywordsVoter sophistication Level of conceptualization 2000 presidential election Vote models Education effects Political knowledge
We appreciate the helpful comments of Paul Goren and Howard Lavine. We also thank William Jacoby for allowing us to use the levels of conceptualization coding for 2000.
- Boehmke, F. J. (2008). GRINTER: A STATA utility to graph interaction effects after regression models. (Version 1.5), University of Iowa, IA.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Devine, C. J. (2010). Why liberals don’t call themselves liberals: the effects of elite communication on ideological comprehension and identification. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Jacoby, W. G., Duff, J., & Pyle, K. (2008). Levels of conceptualization codes, 1992–2004. Ann Arbor: Center for Political Studies, American National Election Studies.Google Scholar
- Kagay, M. R., & Caldeira, G. A. (1980). A ‘reformed’ electorate? Well, at least a changed electorate, 1952–1976. In W. J. Crotty (Ed.), Paths to political reform. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
- Knight, K. (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: Ideological sophistication does matter. Journal of Politics, 47(3), 825–853.Google Scholar
- Lau, R. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 95–126). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Lewis-Beck, M. S., Jacoby, W. G., Norpoth, H., & Weisberg, H. F. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Miller, A. H., & Miller, W. E. (1976). Ideology in the 1972 election: Myth or reality – a rejoinder. The American Political Science Review, 70(3):832–849.Google Scholar
- Miller, A. H., & Wattenberg, M. P. (1981). Policy and performance voting in the 1980 elections. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
- Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. (1981). Reply. The American Political Science Review, 75(1), 149–152.Google Scholar
- Pomper, G. M. (1975). Voter’s choice: Varieties of American electoral behavior. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
- Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, E. R. A. N. (1989). The unchanging American voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Sniderman, P. M., Glaser, J., & Griffin, R. (1990). Information and electoral choice. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Sniderman, P. A., Brody, R. A., Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Heuristics in political reasoning. In P.A. Sniderman, R. A. Brody, P. E. Tetlock (Eds.), Reasoning and choice: Political psychology (pp. 14–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2001). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.0. Cambridge, Harvard University, MA, June 1. http://gking.harvard.edu.
- Zaller, J. R. (1992). Nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar