Specification issues in proximity models of candidate evaluation (with issue importance)

Political Analysis

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 393-420

  Grynaviski, Jeffrey D ^a   Corrigan, Bryce E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748782225     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: 14764989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpl003     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Second International Symposium on Information Theory, ed. B. Petrox and F. Caski, 267-81. Budapest: Akademia Kaido.
2. Aldrich, John H., Eugene Borgida, and John Sullivan. 1989. Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates 'waltz before a blind audience?' American Journal of Political Science 83:123-41.
3. Aldrich, John H., Paul Gronke, and Jeffrey Grynaviski. 1999. Policy, personality, and presidential performance. Paper presented at the 1999 Midwest Political Science Association meetings, Chicago, IL.
4. Brambor, Thomas, William Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14:63-82.
5. Cohen, J. 1978. Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components. Psychological Bulletin 85:858-66.
6. Converse, Philip. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press.
7. Converse, Philip, and Gregory Markus. 1979. Plus ca change: The new CPS election study panel. American Political Science Review 73:32-49.
8. Corrigan, Bryce, and Jeffrey Grynaviski. 2005. The endogenous estimation of issue importance: Mixture models of heterogeneity in candidate evaluation. A paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association meetings, Chicago, IL.
9. Dahl, Robert. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10. Davis, Otto, Melvin Hinich, and Peter Ordeshook 1970. An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64:426-8.
11. Eagley, Alice, and Shelly Chaiken. 1998. Attitude structure and function. In The handbook of social psychology. 4th ed. Vol. 1, ed. D. Gilbert, S. T. Frist, and G. Lindzey, 269-313. New York: McGraw Hill.
12. Enelow, James, Melvin Hinich, and Nancy Mendell. 1986. An empirical evaluation of alternative spatial models of elections. Journal of Politics 48:675-93.
13. Enelow, James, Nancy Mendell, and Subha Ramesh. 1988. A comparison of two distance metrics through regression diagnostics of a model of relative candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics 50:1057-71.
14. Funk, Carolyn. 1999. Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics 61:700-20.
15. Gershkoff, Amy. 2005. How issue interest can save the American public. Paper presented at the 2005 Midwest Political Science Association meetings, Chicago, IL (August 25, 2005 revision).
16. Grynaviski, Jeffrey. 2003. Do issue publics exist? An application of Bayesian mixture models. A paper presented at the American Political Science Association meetings, Philadelphia, PA.
17. Hill, Jennifer, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2001. An extension and test of converse' 'black and white' model of response stability. American Political Science Review 95:397-413.
18. Hinich, Melvin H., and Michael C. Munger. 1997. Analytical politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hutchings, Vincent. 2003. Public opinion and democratic accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Kinder, Donald. 1986. Presidential character revisited. In Political cognition, ed. Richard Lau and David Sears. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. King, G., J. Honaker, A. Joseph, and K. Scheve. 2001. Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm to multiple imputation. The American Political Science Review 95:49-69.
22. Krosnick, Jon A. 1988. The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:196-210.
23. Krosnick, Jon A. 1989. Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24: 240-55.
24. Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior 12:59-92.
25. Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, George Rabinowitz, and Ola Listhaug. 2001. Sophistry versus science: On further efforts to rehabilitate the proximity model. The Journal of Politics 63:482-500.
26. Miller, Joanne, and David Peterson. 2004. Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics 66:847-67.
27. Miller, Warren, and Merrill Shanks. 1996. The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Niemi, Richard G., and Larry M. Bartels. 1985. New measures of issue salience. Journal of Politics 47:1212 20.
29. Page, Benjamin I., and C. C. Jones. 1979. Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties, and the vote. American Political Science Review 73:1071-89.
30. Pennock, J. R. 1979. Democratic political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31. Peterson, David. 2004. Certainty or accessibility: Attitude strength in candidate evaluations. American Journal of Political Analysis 48:513-20.
32. Rabinowitz, George, James W. Prothro, and William Jacoby. 1982. Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics 44:41-63.
33. Raftery, A. E. 1995. Bayesian model selection in social research (with discussion). In Sociological methodology 1995, ed. P. V. Marsden, 411-27. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
34. Rahn, Wendy. 1995. Candidate evaluation in complex information environments: Cognitive organization and comparison process. In Political judgement, ed. Milton Lodge and Kathleen McGraw. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35. Rahn, Wendy, John Aldrich, Eugene Borgida, and John Sullivan. 1990. A social cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In Information and democratic process, ed. John Ferejohn and James Kuklinski. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36. Repass, David. 1971. Issue salience and party choice. American Political Science Review 65:389-400.
37. Rubin, Donald. 1987. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.
38. Schafer, Joseph L. 1997. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman and Hall.
39. Schwarz, G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6:461-64.
40. Visser, Penny, George Bizer, and Jon Krosnick. 2003. Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39:118-41.
41. Westholm, Anders. 2001. On the return of epicycles: Some crossroads in spatial modeling revisited. Journal of Politics 63:436-81.