IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i4p913-933.html

Look over there. Where? A compositional approach to the modeling of public opinion on the most important problem

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Jokinsky
  • Christine S. Lipsmeyer
  • Andrew Q. Philips
  • Laron K. Williams
  • Guy D. Whitten

Abstract

Objective This study aims to test whether the American public is polarized and/or parallel in its assessments of the most important problem. Methods We use compositional time series models and new data on public opinion to test for differences between subgroups. Results We find inconsistent evidence of polarization for some issue areas but not others and remarkably robust evidence of parallel reactions across subgroups to economic and international shocks. Conclusion The U.S. public is remarkably consistent in terms of its assessments of the most important problem and in how subgroups shift their perceptions of issue importance in reaction to changing circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Jokinsky & Christine S. Lipsmeyer & Andrew Q. Philips & Laron K. Williams & Guy D. Whitten, 2024. "Look over there. Where? A compositional approach to the modeling of public opinion on the most important problem," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 913-933, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:913-933
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13360
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13360?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    2. Enns, Peter K. & Kellstedt, Paul M., 2008. "Policy Mood and Political Sophistication: Why Everybody Moves Mood," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 433-454, July.
    3. Hetherington, Marc J., 2009. "Review Article: Putting Polarization in Perspective," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 413-448, April.
    4. Kinder, Donald R. & Kiewiet, D. Roderick, 1981. "Sociotropic Politics: The American Case," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 129-161, April.
    5. Druckman, James N. & Peterson, Erik & Slothuus, Rune, 2013. "How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 57-79, February.
    6. Harteveld, Eelco & Dahlberg, Stefan & Kokkonen, Andrej & Van Der Brug, Wouter, 2019. "Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 1141-1161, July.
    7. Roemer, John E., 1998. "Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: an old argument in new garb," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 399-424, December.
    8. Martin Bisgaard & Rune Slothuus, 2018. "Partisan Elites as Culprits? How Party Cues Shape Partisan Perceptual Gaps," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(2), pages 456-469, April.
    9. Andrew Q. Philips & Amanda Rutherford & Guy D. Whitten, 2016. "Dynamic Pie: A Strategy for Modeling Trade‐Offs in Compositional Variables over Time," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(1), pages 268-283, January.
    10. Andrea Junqueira & Ali Kagalwala & Christine S. Lipsmeyer, 2023. "What's your problem? How issue ownership and partisan discourse influence personal concerns," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 25-37, January.
    11. Michael J. Hanmer & Kerem Ozan Kalkan, 2013. "Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 263-277, January.
    12. Aldrich, John H. & McKelvey, Richard D., 1977. "A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 111-130, March.
    13. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    14. Yildirim, Tevfik Murat, 2022. "Rethinking Women's Interests: An Inductive and Intersectional Approach to Defining Women's Policy Priorities," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 1240-1257, July.
    15. Nolan McCarty & Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal, 2008. "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262633612, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    2. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    3. David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Voting Decisions Exploring a 160-Year Period," Working Papers 2012.70, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    5. Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield & Kevin McAlister & Jee Jeon, 2014. "The variable choice set logit model applied to the 2004 Canadian election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 427-463, March.
    6. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    7. Campante, Filipe R., 2011. "Redistribution in a model of voting and campaign contributions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 646-656, August.
    8. Roemer, John E & Silvestre, Joaquim, 2002. " The "Flypaper Effect" Is Not an Anomaly," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17.
    9. James E. Alt & Amalie Jensen & Horacio Larreguy & David D. Lassen & John Marshall, 2022. "Diffusing Political Concerns: How Unemployment Information Passed between Social Ties Influences Danish Voters," Post-Print hal-03566206, HAL.
    10. Jonathon M. Clegg, 2016. "Perception vs Reality: How Does The British Electorate Evaluate Economic Performance of Incumbent Governments In The Post War Period?," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _143, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    11. Bernasconi, Michele, 2006. "Redistributive taxation in democracies: Evidence on people's satisfaction," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 809-837, December.
    12. Andrea Junqueira & Ali Kagalwala & Christine S. Lipsmeyer, 2023. "What's your problem? How issue ownership and partisan discourse influence personal concerns," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 25-37, January.
    13. repec:osf:socarx:8ukmr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    15. Federico Vegetti, 2019. "The Political Nature of Ideological Polarization: The Case of Hungary," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 78-96, January.
    16. Leigh, Andrew, 2008. "Estimating the impact of gubernatorial partisanship on policy settings and economic outcomes: A regression discontinuity approach," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 256-268, March.
    17. Victor Y. Wu, 2025. "Messages from co-partisan elected officials can increase climate mitigation intentions without changing climate beliefs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    19. Michael Lewis-Beck & Mary Stegmaier, 2013. "The VP-function revisited: a survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 367-385, December.
    20. Ugur Ozdemir & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2014. "Measuring Public Preferential Polarization," Working Papers hal-00954497, HAL.
    21. Bryan Caplan, 2003. "The Logic of Collective Belief," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(2), pages 218-242, May.

    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:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:913-933. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.