Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9f2xs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T06:07:56.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ends Against the Middle: Measuring Latent Traits when Opposites Respond the Same Way for Antithetical Reasons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2023

JBrandon Duck-Mayr Open the ORCID record for JBrandon Duck-Mayr [Opens in a new window]  and
Jacob Montgomery Open the ORCID record for Jacob Montgomery [Opens in a new window]
JBrandon Duck-Mayr*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, The University of Texas at Austin, 158 W 21st ST STOP A1800, Austin, TX 78712-1704, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Jacob Montgomery
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Box 1063, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
*
Corresponding author JBrandon Duck-Mayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Standard methods for measuring latent traits from categorical data assume that response functions are monotonic. This assumption is violated when individuals from both extremes respond identically, but for conflicting reasons. Two survey respondents may “disagree” with a statement for opposing motivations, liberal and conservative justices may dissent from the same Supreme Court decision but provide ideologically contradictory rationales, and in legislative settings, ideological opposites may join together to oppose moderate legislation in pursuit of antithetical goals. In this article, we introduce a scaling model that accommodates ends against the middle responses and provide a novel estimation approach that improves upon existing routines. We apply this method to survey data, voting data from the U.S. Supreme Court, and the 116th Congress, and show that it outperforms standard methods in terms of both congruence with qualitative insights and model fit. This suggests that our proposed method may offer improved one-dimensional estimates of latent traits in many important settings.

Keywords

measurementBayesian statisticsitem response
Type
Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 2023 , pp. 606 - 625
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Edited by Jeff Gill

References

Armstrong, D. A. II, Bakker, R., Carroll, R., Hare, C., Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H.. 2014. Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.10.1201/b16486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atchadé, Y. F., Roberts, G. O., and Rosenthal, J. S.. 2011. “Towards Optimal Scaling of Metropolis-Coupled Markov Chain Monte Carlo.” Statistics and Computing 21 (4): 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, J., Gelman, A., Park, D. K., and Kaplan, N.. 2005. “Practical Issues in Implementing and Understanding Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation.” Political Analysis 13 (2): 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, M. A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, M. A., Strezhnev, A., and Voeten, E.. 2017. “Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 61 (2): 430–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R., and Poole, K. T.. 2013. “Bayesian Metric Multidimensional Scaling.” Political Analysis 21 (1): 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbará, P. 2015. “Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together. Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation using Twitter Data.” Political Analysis 23 (1): 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, A. 2019. “Congressman Biggs’ Statement on the American Health Care Act Passage.” https://biggs.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-biggs-statement-american-health-care-act-passage/.Google Scholar
Bonica, A. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buisseret, P., and Bernhardt, D.. 2017. “Dynamics of Policymaking: Stepping Back to Leap Forward, Stepping Forward to Keep Back.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (4): 820–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R., Lewis, J. B., Lo, J., Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H.. 2009. “Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of Difference and Monte Carlo Tests.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (4): 555–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughey, D., and Warshaw, C.. 2015. “Dynamic Estimation of Latent Opinion using a Hierarchical Group-Level IRT Model.” Political Analysis 23 (2): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, J., Jackman, S., and Rivers, D.. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Voting: A Unified Approach.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. 1950. “Psychological Scaling without a Unit of Measurement.” Psychological Review 57 (3): 145–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Torre, J., Stark, S., and Chernyshenko, O. S.. 2006. “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation of Item Parameters for the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model.” Applied Psychological Measurement 30 (3): 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck-Mayr, J., Garnett, R., and Montgomery, J.. 2020. “GPIRT: A Gaussian Process Model for Item Response Theory.” In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), edited by Peters, J. and Sontag, D., 520–529, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), Vol. 124. Cambridge, MA: JMLR.Google Scholar
Duck-Mayr, J., and Montgomery, J.. 2020. “bggum: Bayesian Estimation of Generalized Graded Unfolding Model Parameters.” R package version 1.0.2. St. Louis: Washington University in St. Louis. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bggum.Google Scholar
Duck-Mayr, J., and Montgomery, J.. 2022. “Replication Data for: Ends Against the Middle: Measuring Latent Traits when Opposites Respond the Same Way for Antithetical Reasons.” Version V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HXORK9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, J. M., and Hinich, M. J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Estévez, F., Magar, E., and Rosas, G.. 2008. “Partisanship in Non-Partisan Electoral Agencies and Democratic Compliance: Evidence from Mexico’s Federal Electoral Institute.” Electoral Studies 27 (2): 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, B. 2019. “The Latest from Washington: H.R. 2740—FY 2020 Appropriations Package.” https://www.texasgopvote.com/economy/latest-washington-0011761.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., and Rubin, D. B.. 1992. “Inference from Iterative Simulation using Multiple Sequences.” Statistical Science 7 (4): 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyer, C. J. 1991. “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Maximum Likelihood.” In Computing Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on the Interface , edited by Keramides, E. M., 156–163. Fairfax Station: Interface Foundation.Google Scholar
Gill, J. 2008. Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach, 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Gilmour, J. B. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goplerud, M. 2019. “A Multinomial Framework for Ideal Point Estimation.” Political Analysis 27 (1): 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, K., Lo, J., and Olmsted, J.. 2016. “Fast Estimation of Ideal Points with Massive Data.” American Political Science Review 110 (4): 631–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. 2001. “Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference, and Model Checking.” Political Analysis 9 (3): 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, S. 2017. “pscl: Classes and Methods for R Developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory.” R package version 1.5.2. Sydney: United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pscl.Google Scholar
Kim, I. S., Londregan, J., and Ratkovic, M.. 2018. “Estimating Spatial Preferences from Votes and Text.” Political Analysis 26 (2): 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, J. H., and Slapin, J. B.. 2019. Roll Call Rebels: Strategic Dissent in the United States and United Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, B. E., and Clark, T. S.. 2014. “Scaling Politically Meaningful Dimensions using Texts and Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (3): 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. B., Poole, K., Rosenthal, H., Boche, A., Rudkin, A., and Sonnet, L.. 2019. “Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database.” https://voteview.com/.Google Scholar
Martin, A. D., and Quinn, K. M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. D., Quinn, K. M., and Park, J. H.. 2011. “MCMCpack: Markov Chain Monte Carlo in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 42 (9): 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, L. 2019. “House Passes Appropriations Package to Avert Shutdown, Sends to Trump.” https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/house-passes-appropriations-package-avert-shutdown-sends-trump/.Google Scholar
Muraki, E. 1992. “A Generalized Partial Credit Model: Application of an EM Algorithm.” Applied Psychological Measurement 16 (2): 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K. T. 1984. “Least Squares Metric, Unidimensional Unfolding.” Psychometrika 49 (3): 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K. T. 2000. “Nonparametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8 (3): 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H.. 1985. “A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (2): 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, K. M. 2004. “Bayesian Factor Analysis for Mixed Ordinal and Continuous Responses.” Political Analysis 12 (4): 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. S., Donoghue, J. R., and Laughlin, J. E.. 2000. “A General Item Response Theory Model for Unfolding Unidimensional Polytomous Responses.” Applied Psychological Measurement 24 (1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, B., and McCarty, N.. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 530–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slapin, J. B., Kirkland, J. H., Lazzaro, J. A., Leslie, P. A., and O’Grady, T.. 2018. “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament.” American Political Science Review 112 (1): 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spirling, A., and McLean, I.. 2007. “UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the UK House of Commons.” Political Analysis 15 (1): 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, M. 1997. “Bayesian Methods for Mixtures of Normal Distributions.” PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Tahk, A. 2018. “Nonparametric Ideal-Point Estimation and Inference.” Political Analysis 26 (2): 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tlaib, R. 2019. https://twitter.com/RepRashida/status/1141448928107401216.Google Scholar
Treier, S., and Hillygus, D. S.. 2009. “The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4): 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, S., and Jackman, S.. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, L. 1997. “Implementation of Marginal Bayesian Estimation with Four-Parameter Beta Prior Distributions.” Applied Psychological Measurement 21 (2): 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, C., and Lauderdale, B. E.. 2011. “Distinguishing between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 363–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Duck-Mayr and Montgomery Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HXORK9
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Duck-Mayr and Montgomery supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Duck-Mayr and Montgomery supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.2 MB