IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v59y2015i3p759-774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Bayesian Aldrich‐McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens' Ideological Preferences and Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Hare
  • David A. Armstrong
  • Ryan Bakker
  • Royce Carroll
  • Keith T. Poole

Abstract

Aldrich‐McKelvey scaling is a powerful method that corrects for differential‐item functioning (DIF) in estimating the positions of political stimuli (e.g., parties and candidates) and survey respondents along a latent policy dimension from issue scale data. DIF arises when respondents interpret issue scales (e.g., the standard liberal‐conservative scale) differently and distort their placements of the stimuli and themselves. We develop a Bayesian implementation of the classical maximum likelihood Aldrich‐McKelvey scaling method that overcomes some important shortcomings in the classical procedure. We then apply this method to study citizens' ideological preferences and perceptions using data from the 2004–2012 American National Election Studies and the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our findings indicate that DIF biases self‐placements on the liberal‐conservative scale in a way that understates the extent of polarization in the contemporary American electorate and that citizens have remarkably accurate perceptions of the ideological positions of senators and Senate candidates.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Hare & David A. Armstrong & Ryan Bakker & Royce Carroll & Keith T. Poole, 2015. "Using Bayesian Aldrich‐McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens' Ideological Preferences and Perceptions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 759-774, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:59:y:2015:i:3:p:759-774
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12151
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kyle L Marquardt, 2020. "How and how much does expert error matter? Implications for quantitative peace research," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 692-700, November.
    2. Fabian Gouret, 2021. "Empirical foundation of valence using Aldrich–McKelvey scaling," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(3), pages 177-226, September.
    3. Fabian Gouret & Stéphane Rossignol, 2019. "Intensity valence," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(1), pages 63-112, June.
    4. Anna-Sophie Kurella & Thomas Bräuninger & Franz Urban Pappi, 2018. "Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in mixed-member proportional systems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 306-334, July.
    5. Christopher J Fariss & James Lo, 2020. "Innovations in concepts and measurement for the study of peace and conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 669-678, November.
    6. K Chad Clay & Ryan Bakker & Anne-Marie Brook & Daniel W Hill Jr & Amanda Murdie, 2020. "Using practitioner surveys to measure human rights: The Human Rights Measurement Initiative’s civil and political rights metrics," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 715-727, November.
    7. Malek Abduljaber, 2020. "A Dimension Reduction Method Application to a Political Science Question: Using Exploratory Factor Analysis to Generate the Dimensionality of Political Ideology in the Arab World," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-13, March.

    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:wly:amposc:v:59:y:2015:i:3:p:759-774. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.