PropertyValue
?:abstract
  • A central question in issue voting is how people form their evaluations about parties’ issue positions. Spatial modeling has provided two seemingly contradicting answers without, however, proving either of them as the dominant one. Empirical evidence indicates that both the directional and the proximity model account equally well for voters’ party preferences. Instead of vainly trying to look for the ultimate ‘winner’, the aim of this paper is to examine whether this puzzling pattern is due to contextual and issue heterogeneity. The structure of the party system and the degree of ideological polarisation are deemed to account for this discrepancy. To test this hypothesis we use the 2004 European Election Study data which permit the specification of a linear hierarchical model so that we can control for these upper-level contextual factors. Furthermore, since different issues might encourage thinking either in proximity or in directional terms, it is also examined whether the common average performance of the two models conceals differences which can be identified by focusing on the nature of political issues. This is important because it is explicitly related to another fundamental issue, that is, how people understand attitudinal scale-questions. The findings seem to indicate that contextual determinants shape people’s thinking about issues. By the same token, the degree of generality in a given issue question is also important: proximity appears to work better with broad, encompassing-all political dimensions; more specific issues, however, encourage a rather directional thinking about politics. (xsd:string)
?:author
?:comment
  • (CSES) (xsd:string)
?:dataSource
  • CSES-Bibliography (xsd:string)
?:dateModified
  • 2007 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2007 (xsd:gyear)
?:duplicate
is ?:hasPart of
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • Exploring contextual heterogeneity in issue voting: Proximity versus direction (xsd:string)
?:publicationType
  • inproceedings (xsd:string)
?:sourceCollection
  • 4th General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (xsd:string)
?:sourceInfo
  • Bibsonomy (xsd:string)
  • In 4th General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, 2007 (xsd:string)
?:studyGroup
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) (xsd:string)
?:tags
  • 2007 (xsd:string)
  • CSES (xsd:string)
  • CSES_input2014 (xsd:string)
  • CSES_pro (xsd:string)
  • FDZ_IUP (xsd:string)
  • checked (xsd:string)
  • inproceedings (xsd:string)
  • input2014 (xsd:string)
rdf:type