What is Issue Ownership and How Should We Measure It?

Original Paper

Abstract

Recently, the concept of issue ownership has attracted increasing attention by students of electoral behaviour as well as party competition. However, both the definition and measurement of issue ownership—often drawn from Petrocik’s seminal 1996-article—is unclear. This constitutes a serious drawback to the further development and understanding of issue ownership itself and its purported effects. The paper addresses these problems by, first, establishing a definition of issue ownership at the individual level. On this basis, the standard ‘which party is best at handling issue X’ measure of issue ownership is assessed. The analyses using experiments embedded in a nationally representative panel survey indicate that the measure lacks validity and is partially redundant. Consequently, its replacement with a better performing alternative is recommended.

Keywords

Issue ownership Public opinion Political parties Question wording 

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9403_MOESM1_ESM.docx (129 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 129 kb)

References

  1. Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellucci, P. (2006). Tracing the cognitive and affective roots of ‘party competence’: Italy and Britain, 2001. Electoral Studies, 25(3), 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandenburg, H. (2005). Political bias in the Irish Media: A quantitative study of campaign coverage during the 2002 general election. Irish Political Studies, 20(3), 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983a). Explaining and predicting elections. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983b). Party competition—selective emphasis or direct confrontation? An alternative view with data. In H. Daalder & P. Mair (Eds.), Western European party systems. Continuity and change (pp. 267–305). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, L., Dahlberg, S., & Martinsson, J. (2015). Changes and fluctuation in issue ownership: The case of Sweden, 1979–2010. Scandinavian Political Studies, 38(2), 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolezal, M., Ensser-Jedenastik, L., Müller, W. C., & Winkler, A. K. (2014). How parties compete for votes: A test of saliency theory. European Journal of Political Research, 53(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egan, P. J. (2013). Partisan priorties. How issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geys, B. (2012). Success and failure in electoral competition: Selective issue emphasis under incomplete issue ownership. Electoral Studies, 31(2), 406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green-Pedersen, C. (2007). The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in western Europe. Political Studies, 55(4), 608–628.Google Scholar
  14. Green-Pedersen, C., & Stubager, R. (2010). The political conditionality of mass media influence. When do parties follow mass media attention? British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Karlsen, R., & Aardal, B. (2011). Kamp om dagsorden og sakseierskap. In B. Aardal (Ed.), De politiske landskap. En studie af stortingsvalget 2009 (pp. 131–162). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
  17. Kuechler, M. (1991). Issues and voting in the European Elections 1989. European Journal of Political Research, 19(1), 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lachat, R. (2014). Issue ownership and the vote: The effects of associative and competence ownership on issue voting. Swiss Political Science Review, 20(4), 727–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martinsson, J. (2009). Economic voting and issue ownership. An integrative approach. Gothenburg: Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  20. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda. The mass media and public opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Meguid, B. M. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oscarsson, H., & Holmberg, S. (2013). Nya svenska väljare. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.Google Scholar
  23. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sartori, G. (1984). Guidelines for concept analysis. In G. Sartori (Ed.), Social science concepts. A systematic analysis (pp. 15–85). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Stubager, R., & Seeberg, H. B. (2016). What can a party say? How parties ‘communication can influence voters’ issue ownership perceptions. Electoral Studies, 44, 162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stubager, R., & Slothuus, R. (2013). What are the sources of political parties’ issue ownership? Testing four explanations at the individual level. Political Behavior, 35(3), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Therriault, A. (2015). Whose issue is it anyway? A new look at the meaning and measurement of issue ownership. British Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 929–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tresch, A., Lefevere, J., & Walgrave, S. (2013). ‘Steal me if you can!’: The impact of campaign messages on associative issue ownership. Party Politics, 21(2), 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van der Brug, W. (2004). Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies, 23(2), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagner, M., & Zeglovits, E. (2014). Survey questions about party competence: Insights from cognitive interviews. Electoral Studies, 34(1), 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Nuytemans, M. (2009). Issue ownership stability and change: How political parties claim and maintain issues through media appearances. Political Communication, 26(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Tresch, A. (2012). The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(4), 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walgrave, S., Van Camp, K., Lefevere, J., & Tresch, A. (2016). Measuring issue ownership with survey questions. A question wording experiment. Electoral Studies, 42, 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, J. R. (2012). Unemployment and the democratic electoral advantage. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 685–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations