Political Behavior

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 51–67 | Cite as

Issue Importance and Performance Voting

  • Patrick Fournier
  • André Blais
  • Richard Nadeau
  • Elisabeth Gidengil
  • Neil Nevitte


Issue importance mediates the impact of public policy issues on electoral decisions. Individuals who consider that an issue is important are more likely to rely on their attitudes toward that issue when evaluating candidates and deciding for whom to vote. The logic behind the link between issue importance and issue voting should translate to a link between issue importance and performance voting. Incumbent performance evaluations regarding an issue should have a stronger impact on the vote choice of individuals who find that issue important. The analysis demonstrates that there is a significant interaction between performance evaluations and issue importance. People concerned about an issue assign more weight to their evaluations of the government's performance on that issue when making up their mind.

issue importance government performance vote choice heterogeneity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abramson, Paul, Aldrich, John, and Rohde, David (1999). Continuity and Change in the 1996 Election. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berent, Matthew K., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1995). The relation between political attitude importance and knowledge structure. In Milton Lodge and Kathleen McGraw (eds.), Political Judgment: Structure and Process, pp. 91–109. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brody, Richard (1991). Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald (1969). Political Change in Britain. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. Duch, Raymond M. (2001). A developmental model of heterogeneous economic voting in new democracies. American Political Science Review 95: 895–910.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, George C., III (1990). Presidential Approval: A Sourcebook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fiorina, Morris P. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Flanigan, William, and Zingale, Nancy (1994). Political Behavior of the American Electorate. Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fournier, Patrick (2000). Heterogeneity in Political Decision-Making: The Nature, Extent, Sources, Dynamics, and Consequences of Interpersonal Differences in Coefficient Strength. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  11. Greene, William H. (1997). Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Hinckley, Barbara, Hofstetter, Richard, and Kessel, John (1974). Information and the vote: a comparative election study. American Politics Quarterly 2: 131–158.Google Scholar
  13. Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. (1987). News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Iyengar, Shanto, Peters, Mark, and Kinder, Donald R. (1982). Experimental demonstration of the not-so-minimal consequences of television news programs. American Political Science Review 76: 848–858.Google Scholar
  15. Iyengar, Shanto, Kinder, Donald, Peters, Mark D., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1984). The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 778–787.Google Scholar
  16. Johnston, Richard, Blais, Andre´, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nevitte, Neil (1996). The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
  17. King, Gary (1989). Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Krosnick, Jon A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: a study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluation, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 196–210.Google Scholar
  19. Krosnick, Jon A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: a study of issue publics in contemporary america. Political Behavior 12: 59–92.Google Scholar
  20. Lau, Richard R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science 29: 119–138.Google Scholar
  21. Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.Google Scholar
  22. McCombs, Maxell, and Shaw, Donald (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–187.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1996). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: a program of research on the priming hypothesis. In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (eds), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, pp. 79–99. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science 44: 301–315.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, John (1973). War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Neustadt, Richard (1960). Presidential Power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Nevitte, Neil, Blais, Andre´, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nadeau, Richard (2000). Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Niemi, Richard G., and Bartels, Larry M. (1985). New measures of issue salience: an evaluation. Journal of Politics 47: 1212–1220.Google Scholar
  29. Rabinowitz, George, Prothro, James W., and Jacoby, William (1982). Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics 42: 41–63.Google Scholar
  30. Repass, David R. (1971). Issue salience and party choice. American Political Science Review 65: 389–400.Google Scholar
  31. Rivers, Douglas (1988). Heterogeneity in models of electoral choice. American Journal of Political Science 32: 737–757.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, Richard, and McAllister, Ian (1990). The Loyalties of Voters: A Lifetime Learning Model. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Schuman, Howard, Ludwig, J., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1986). The perceived threat of nuclear war, salience, and open questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 519–536.Google Scholar
  34. Shapiro, Michael J. (1969). Rational political man: a synthesis of economic and socialpsychological perspective. American Political Science Review 63: 1106–1119.Google Scholar
  35. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Fournier
    • 1
  • André Blais
    • 2
  • Richard Nadeau
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Gidengil
    • 3
  • Neil Nevitte
    • 4
  1. 1.Département de Science PolitiqueUniversité de MontréalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Université de MontréalCanada
  3. 3.McGill UniversityCanada
  4. 4.University of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations