Question Order and Multidimensionality of Partisanship
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1992.13.0.501-514Abstract
The recognition of question-order problems has prompted a reexamination of theory and data in several areas of political behavior. The possibility of question-order effects is of special concern to the study of party identification, the original conceptualization of which has been criticized for disregarding multi dimensionality. We have yet to discover whether the sequence and/or proximity of items measuring multiple, related dimensions may influence findings. An area of research in which results may be especially susceptible to reactivity is that of multiple partisan identification. Most of the studies in this literature asked respondents a context-differentiated sequence of items about their partisan identification in national and state and (infrequently) local politics, respectively, separated only by the usual probes for intensity and direction. The responses obtained logically risk contamination by either consistency or contrast effects, as well as by salience or frame-of-reference effects generated by intervening or antecedent, nonrecursively-related items. In this study, we report the results of two experiments used to control for potential question-order effects in the measurement of multiple party identification. In the first, national and state partisan identification items were alternated in sequence in order to test whether responses to national partisan identification items structure responses to state (and local) partisan identification items. In the second, party thermometer items, national, state, and local partisan identification items, and national, state, and local retrospective evaluations of party governing performance were rotated sequentially. Generally, responses to these three measures of partisanship did not differ significantly as the order of appearance changed.References
Abramson, Paul R., Brian D. Silver, and Barbara Anderson. 1987. The Effects of Question Order in Attitude Surveys: The Case of the SRC/CPS Citizen Duty Items. American Journal of Political Science 31: 900-908.
Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bishop, George F. 1990. Issue Involvement and Response Effects in Public Opinion Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 54: 209-218.
Bishop, George F., Robert W. Oldendick, and Alfred J. Tuchfarber. 1982. Political Information Processing: Question Order and Context Effects. Political Behavior 4: 177-200.
________. 1984. Interest in Political Campaigns: The Influence of Question Order Electoral Context. Political Behavior 6: 159-169.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Demaris, Alfred. 1992. Logit Modeling: Practical Applications. Newbury Park, C A: Sage Publications.
Feinberg, Stephen E. 1977. The Analysis of Cross-Classified Categorical Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Restrospective Voting in American National Election. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Franklin, Charles F. 1984. Issue Preferences, Socialization, and the Evolution of Party Identification. American Journal of Politics 28: 459-478.
Franklin, Charles F. and John E. Jackson. 1983. The Dynamics of Party Identification. American Political Science Review 77:957-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1957569
Hadley, Charles D. 1985. Dual Partisan Identification in the South. Journal ofPolitics 47: 254-268.
Jennings, M. Kent and Richard G. Niemi. 1966. Party Identification at Multiple Levels of Government. American Journal of Sociology 72: 86-101.
Katz, Richard J. 1979. The Dimensionality of Partisan Identification: Cross-National Perspectives. Comparative Politics 11: 147-163.
Lau, Richard R., David O. Sears, and Tom lessor. 1990. Factor Artifact Revisited: Survey Instrument Effects and Pocketbook Politics. Political Behavior 12: 217-240.
Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1985. Pocketbook Voting in U.S. National Election Studies: Fact or Artifact? American Journal of Political Science 29: 348-356.
Maggiotto, Michael A. 1986. Party Identification in the Federal System. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Maggiotto, Michael A. and James E. Piereson. 1977. Partisan Identification and Electoral Choice: The Hostility Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 21: 745-767.
Maggiotto, Michael A. and Gary D. Wekkin. 1987. Global Concepts and Segmented Partisans: Rejoining Theory and Data. Paper Delivered at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association meeting, Dallas, TX.
_______ . 1989. Segmented Partisanship in the Electoral Context. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Markus, Gregory B. and Philip E. Converse. 1979. A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review 73: 1055-1070.
Niemi, Richard G., Stephen Wright, and Lynda W. Powell. 1987. Multiple Party Identifiers and the Measurement of Party Identification. Journal of Politics 49: 1093-1103.
Page, Benjamin I. and Calvin C. Jones. 1979. Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote. American Political Science Review l3:1071-1089. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953990
Petrocik, John R. 1974. An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification. Political Methodology 1: 31-49.
Sears, David O. and Richard R. Lau. 1983. Inducing Apparently Self-Interested Political Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 27: 223-252.
Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.
Valentine, David C. and John R. Van Wingen. 1980. Partisanship, Independence, and Partisan Identification. American Politics Quarterly 8: 165-186.
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1980. A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification. Political Behavior 2:33-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989755
Wekkin, Gary D. 1991. Why Crossover Voters Are Not "Mischievous Voters": The Segmented Partisanship Hypothesis. American Politics Quarterly 19:229-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9101900205
_______ , Michael A. Maggiotto, and Shannon G. Davis. 1987. Party Identification and Partisan Realignment in Arkansas. Comparative State Politics 8 (October): 8-11.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
