IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v73y1979i04p1071-1089_16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote

Author

Listed:
  • Page, Benjamin I.
  • Jones, Calvin C.

Abstract

Past studies have offered diverse estimates of the role of policy preferences, party loyalties, candidate personalities and other factors in voting decisions. Most have postulated recursive (that is, one-way) causal relationships among the central variables. This study specifies a non-recursive simultaneous equation model and estimates its parameters for the 1972 and 1976 elections using CPS data. The estimates differ markedly from those of simple recursive models. Policy preferences appear to have much more influence on voting decisions, and party attachments much less, than was previously thought. Candidate evaluations strongly affect voters' perceptions of closeness to candidates on policy issues. Party identification may be influenced by short-term factors. Differences between 1972 and 1976 reflect the issue-oriented McGovern candidacy. Simultaneous equation models offer no cure-all; in the absence of accepted theory many specifications are open to controversy. But future research must take account of reciprocal causal paths.

Suggested Citation

  • Page, Benjamin I. & Jones, Calvin C., 1979. "Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 1071-1089, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:73:y:1979:i:04:p:1071-1089_16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400163993/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. Yang Shen & Jing Wu & Shuping Wu, 2022. "City‐chief turnover and place‐based policy change: Evidence from China," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(5), pages 1296-1328, November.
    2. Alan S. Zuckerman & Malcolm Brynin, 2001. "A Decision Heuristic for Party Identification: New British and German Data and a New Understanding for a Classic Concept," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 268, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Rune Stubager, 2003. "Preference‐shaping: an Empirical Test," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 241-261, June.
    4. Breznau, Nate, 2017. "Simultaneous Feedback Models with Macro-Comparative Cross-Sectional Data," OSF Preprints v4sxb, Center for Open Science.
    5. Donald P. Green, 2013. "Breaking Empirical Deadlocks in the Study of Partisanship: An Overview of Experimental Research Strategies," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(1), pages 6-15.
    6. Russell J Dalton, 2017. "Citizens’ representation in the 2009 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 188-211, June.
    7. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2019. "How Do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multi-Country Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," NBER Working Papers 26572, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Forsythe, Robert & Rietz, Thomas A. & Ross, Thomas W., 1999. "Wishes, expectations and actions: a survey on price formation in election stock markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-110, May.
    9. Wouter van der Brug, 2001. "Perceptions, Opinions and Party Preferences in the Face of a Real World Event," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(1), pages 53-80, January.
    10. Scott L. Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1991. "Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 115-137, April.
    11. Anja Neundorf & James Adams, 2014. "The Micro-foundation of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens' Issue Salience and Party Attachments," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 692, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    12. Samuel Merrill III & Bernard Grofman, 1997. "Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: II," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 25-48, January.
    13. Irwin L. Morris & George Rabinowitz, 1997. "Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: IV," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 75-88, January.
    14. James Adams, 1998. "Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 5-31, January.

    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:apsrev:v:73:y:1979:i:04:p:1071-1089_16. 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/psr .

    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.