IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v4y2016i01p195-197_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Causality in the Study of Valence and Voting Behavior: An Introduction to the Symposium

Author

Listed:
  • Wlezien, Christopher

Abstract

Evans and Chzhen (2016a) challenge Clarke et al.’s (Clarke et al. 2004; Clarke et al. 2009) “valence†model of voting behavior in British elections. Specifically, they take issue with results based on individual-level analyses relating subjective performance assessments to the (self-reported) vote measured concurrently. The argument is a basic one: there is reason to think that evaluations of performance are caused by—and not causes of—the vote. That this may be true is supported by a large and growing body of research in political science, much of which focuses on economic voting (e.g., Campbell et al. 1960; Kramer 1983; Wlezien et al. 1997; Bartels 2002; Anderson, Mendes and Tverdova 2004; Evans and Andersen 2006; Ladner and Wlezien 2007; Evans and Pickup 2010). Estimates of valence effects in Clarke et al.’s individual-level analyses thus may be correspondingly biased. It is an important issue for the study of valence and also other electoral research relying on perceptual and attitudinal predictors.

Suggested Citation

  • Wlezien, Christopher, 2016. "On Causality in the Study of Valence and Voting Behavior: An Introduction to the Symposium," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 195-197, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:4:y:2016:i:01:p:195-197_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847015000709/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:4:y:2016:i:01:p:195-197_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.