Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:33:59.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues and the Dynamics of Party Identification: A Methodological Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Eric Schickler and
Donald Green
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using data from the 1956–60 and 1972–76 National Election Studies (NES), we replicate the issues/party identification (PID) models set forth in Franklin (1992) and Franklin and Jackson (1983). Mild constraints on the signs of the parameters in a full-information model reduce to insignificance the apparent causal influence of issue proximities on partisanship. Furthermore, alternative specifications of the issues/PID relationship yield no evidence that citizens update their partisanship based on their ideological distance from the parties.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 5 , 1993, pp. 151 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramson, Paul R., and Ostrom, Charles W. Jr. 1991. “Macropartisanship: An Empirical Reassessment.” American Political Science Review 85: 181–92.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1991. “Instrumental and ‘Quasi-Instrumental’ Variables.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 777–800.Google Scholar
Belknap, George, and Campbell, Angus. 1952. “Political Party Identification and Attitudes toward Foreign Policy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15: 601–23.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazersfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A., and Rothenburg, Lawrence S. 1988. “The Instability of Partisanship: An Analysis of the 1980 Presidential Election.” British Journal of Political Science 18: 445–65.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E., and Pierce, Roy. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. 1992. “Measurement and the Dynamics of Party Identification.” Political Behavior 14: 297–309.Google Scholar
Franklin, Charles H., and Jackson, John E. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.” American Political Science Review 77: 957–73.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip. 1988. “On the Dimensionality of Public Sentiment toward Partisan and Ideological Groups.” American Journal of Political Science 32: 758–80.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip. 1990. “The Effects of Measurement Error on Two-Stage, Least Squares Estimates.” Political Analysis 2: 57–74.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1990. “Of Artifacts and Partisan Instability.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 872–902.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Palmquist, Bradley. 1994. “How Stable is Party Identification?” Political Behavior 43: 437–66.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Schickler, Eric. 1993. “A Multiple Method Approach to the Measurement of Party Identification.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57: 503–35.Google Scholar
Green, Donald Philip, and Schickler, Eric. 1994. “The Grim Reaper, The Stork, and Partisan Change in the North and South, 1952-1992.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York City, September 1-4, 1994.Google Scholar
Hayduk, Leslie A. 1988. Structural Equations Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1975a. “Issues and Party Alignment.” In The Future of Political Parties, ed. Maisel, Louis and Sacks, Paul M. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Jackson, John E. 1975b. “Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 19: 161–85.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent, and Niemi, Richard G. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. 1984. Econometric Methods. 3d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, Karl G., and Sörbom, Dag. 1988. LISREL VII. Mooresville, Ind.: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1991. “The Stability of Political Preferences: Comparisons of Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 547–76.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erikson, Robert S., and Stimson, James A. 1989. “Macropartisanship.” American Political Science Review 83: 1125–42.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73: 1055–70.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G. 1973. “Collecting Information about the Family: A Problem in Survey Methodology.” In Political Socialization: A Reader in Theory and Research, ed. Dennis, Jack. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Jones, Calvin C. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties, and the Vote.” American Political Science Review 73: 1071–89.Google Scholar
Wiley, David E., and Wiley, James A. 1970. “The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 35: 112–17.Google Scholar