IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v4y2016i01p199-220_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Re-evaluating the Valence Model of Political Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, Geoffrey
  • Chzhen, Kat

Abstract

The influential valence model of voting developed over the last decade by the British Election Study (BES) team assumes that party and leadership performance evaluations have a causal impact on party choice. An alternative perspective argues that such performance evaluations are instead the consequences of party choice. This article examines the analytical and empirical underpinnings of the BES valence model and compares it to the party-driven approach. To do so, it estimates cross-lagged structural equation models of the association between Labour Party preference and evaluations of the Labour government's performance during the 2005–10 British electoral cycle. It shows that party preference has a stronger effect on performance evaluations than vice versa; performance evaluations have no significant effect on party preference toward the end of the electoral cycle. The study also finds that, contrary to claims made concerning their merits as simplifying heuristics, performance assessments have no impact on short-term movements in party choice for less politically attentive voters. To a substantial degree, evaluations of party performance express—rather than explain—party choice, and would appear to have limited merit as simplifying heuristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Geoffrey & Chzhen, Kat, 2016. "Re-evaluating the Valence Model of Political Choice," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 199-220, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:4:y:2016:i:01:p:199-220_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847013000113/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ron Johnston & Kelvyn Jones & David Manley, 2018. "Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1957-1976, July.

    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:199-220_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.