Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:16:12.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-evaluating the Valence Model of Political Choice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2015

Geoffrey Evans  and
Kat Chzhen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influential valence model of voting developed over the last decade by the British Election Study (BES) team assumes that party and leadership performance evaluations have a causal impact on party choice. An alternative perspective argues that such performance evaluations are instead the consequences of party choice. This article examines the analytical and empirical underpinnings of the BES valence model and compares it to the party-driven approach. To do so, it estimates cross-lagged structural equation models of the association between Labour Party preference and evaluations of the Labour government's performance during the 2005–10 British electoral cycle. It shows that party preference has a stronger effect on performance evaluations than vice versa; performance evaluations have no significant effect on party preference toward the end of the electoral cycle. The study also finds that, contrary to claims made concerning their merits as simplifying heuristics, performance assessments have no impact on short-term movements in party choice for less politically attentive voters. To a substantial degree, evaluations of party performance express—rather than explain—party choice, and would appear to have limited merit as simplifying heuristics.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 199 - 220
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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

*

Geoffrey Evans is Official Fellow in Politics, Nuffield College, and Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford ([email protected]). Kat Chzhen is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at Nuffield College, and the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford ([email protected]).

References

Abelson, Robert P. 1968. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., Lanoue, David J.Ramesh, Subha. 1988. ‘Economic Conditions, Causal Attributions, and Political Evaluations in the 1984 Presidential Election’. Journal of Politics 50(4):848–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., Mendes, Silvia, Tverdova, YuliyaKim, Haklin. 2004. ‘Endogenous Economic Voting: Evidence from the 1997 British Election’. Electoral Studies 23(4):683–708.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, JonathanSnyder, James M.. 2008. ‘The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting’. American Political Science Review 102(2):215–232.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2002a. ‘Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions’. Political Behavior 24(2):117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2002b. ‘Question Order and Declining Faith in Elections’. Public Opinion Quarterly 66:67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N.Tucker, Richard. 1998. ‘Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis With a Binary Dependent Variable’. American Journal of Political Science 42(4):1260–1288.Google Scholar
Berrington, Ann, Smith, Peter, Sturgis, Patrick. 2006. An Overview of Methods for the Analysis of Panel Data. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Briefing Paper NCRM 007. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/415/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-007.pdf.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E.Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, MarianneWhiteley, Paul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, MarianneWhiteley, Paul. 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold, Sanders, David, Stewart, MarianneWhiteley, Paul. 2011. ‘Valence Politics and Electoral Choice in Britain, 2010’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 21(2):237–253.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Evans, GeoffreyAndersen, Robert. 2004. ‘Do Issues Decide? Partisan Conditioning and Perceptions of Party Issue Positions across the Electoral Cycle’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 14:18–39.Google Scholar
Evans, GeoffreyAndersen, Robert. 2005. ‘The Impact of Party Leaders: How Blair Lost Labour Votes’. Parliamentary Affairs 58:818–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, GeoffreyAndersen, Robert. 2006. ‘The Political Conditioning Of Economic Perceptions’. Journal of Politics 68:194–207.Google Scholar
Evans, GeoffreyChzhen, Kat. 2013. ‘Explaining Voters’ Defection From Labour over the 2005–2010 Electoral Cycle: Leaders, Economics, and the Rising Importance of Immigration’. Political Studies 61:3–22.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, Neundorf, Anja. 2013. Core Political Values and the Long-Term Shaping of Partisanship. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association 71st annual meeting, Chicago, 13 April.Google Scholar
Evans, GeoffreyPickup, Mark. 2010. ‘Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000–2004 US Presidential Election Cycle’. Journal of Politics 72:1236–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1982. ‘Economic Self-interest and Political Behavior’. American Journal of Political Science 26(3):446–466.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, Blais, André, Nadeau, Richard, Gidengil, ElisabethNevitte, Neil. 2003. ‘Issue Importance and Performance Voting’. Political Behavior 25(1):51–67.Google Scholar
Gaines, Brian. J., Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Peyton, BuddyVerkuilen, Jay. 2007. ‘Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq’. Journal of Politics 69(4):957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S.Huber, Gregory A.. 2009. ‘Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?’ American Political Science Review 103(3):407–426.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2005. ‘Party Identification and Core Political Values’. American Journal of Political Science 49(4):881–896.Google Scholar
Green, Donald, Palmquist, BradleySchickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Jane. 2007. ‘When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition’. Political Studies 55:629–655.Google Scholar
Green, JaneHobolt, Sara. 2008. ‘Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections’. Electoral Studies 27:460–476.Google Scholar
Green, JaneJennings, Will. 2012a. ‘Valence as Macro-Competence: An Analysis of Mood in Party Competence Evaluations in Great Britain’. British Journal of Political Science 43(2):311–343.Google Scholar
Green, JaneJennings, Will. 2012b. ‘The Dynamic of Issue Competence and Vote For Parties in and out of Power: An Analysis of Valence in Britain, 1979–1997’. European Journal of Political Research 51(4):469–503.Google Scholar
Highton, BenjaminKam, Cindy. 2011. ‘The Long-Term Dynamics of Partisanship and Issue Orientations’. Journal of Politics 73(1):202–215.Google Scholar
Johns, Robert. 2010. ‘Measuring Issue Salience in British Elections: Competing Interpretations of ‘Most Important Issue’ ’. Political Research Quarterly 63(1):143–158.Google Scholar
Johnston, Ron. 2011. ‘Review of Performance Politics and the British Voter’. Parliamentary Affairs 64(1):204–215.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A.Kinder, Donald R.. 1990. ‘Altering the Foundations of Popular Support for the President Through Priming: Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair’. American Political Science Review 84:495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladner, MatthewWlezien, Christopher. 2007. ‘Partisan Preferences, Electoral Prospects, and Economic Expectations’. Comparative Political Studies 40:571–596.Google Scholar
Sears, DavidLau, Richard. 1983. ‘Inducing Apparently Self-Interested Political Preferences’. American Journal of Political Science 27:233–252.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard, Sears, DavidJessor, Tom. 1990. ‘Fact or Artifact Revisited: Survey Instrument Effects and Pocketbook Politics’. Political Behavior 12:217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory. 1982. ‘Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study’. American Political Science Review 76(3):538–560.Google Scholar
Marsh, MichaelTilley, James. 2010. ‘The Attribution of Credit and Blame to Governments and its Impact on Vote Choice’. British Journal of Political Science 40(1):115–134.Google Scholar
Milazzo, Caitlin, Adams, JamesGreen, Jane. 2012. ‘Are Voter Decision Rules Endogenous to Parties’ Policy Strategies? A Model With Applications to Elite Depolarization in Post-Thatcher Britain’. Journal of Politics 74(1):262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peffley, Mark. 1984. ‘The Voter as Juror: Attributing Responsibility for Economic Problems’. Political Behavior 6(3):275–294.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, David P. 2002. ‘Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration: Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making’. Journal of Politics 64:1021–1044.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Thomas. 2003. ‘Who's Responsible for the Economy? The Formation and Consequences of Responsibility Attributions’. American Journal of Political Science 47(4):698–713.Google Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, MarianneWhiteley, Paul. 2011. ‘Downs, Stokes and the Dynamics of Electoral Choice’. British Journal of Political Science 41(1):287–314.Google Scholar
Schickler, EricGreen, Donald. 1993. ‘Issues and the Dynamics of Party Identification: A Methodological Critique’. Political Analysis 5(1):151–179.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Nora CatePresser, Stanley. 2003. ‘The Science of Asking Questions’. Annual Review of Sociology 29:65–88.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard.Presser, Stanley. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schwarz, NorbertSudman, Seymour. (eds). 1992. Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1963. ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’. American Political Science Review 57:368–377.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald. 1994. ‘Valence Politics’. In Electoral Politics, edited by Dennis Kavanagh, 141–162. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S.Lodge, Milton. 2006. ‘Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs’. American Journal of Political Science 50(3):755–769.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., Lodge, MiltonGlather, Jill. 2001. ‘The Motivated Construction of Political Judgments’. In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, edited by James H. Kuklinski, 198–226. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilley, JamesHobolt, Sara. 2011. ‘Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility’. Journal of Politics 73(2):316–330.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, RogerRasinski, Kenneth A.. 1988. ‘Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement’. Psychological Bulletin 103(3):299–314.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rips, Lance J.Rasinski, Kenneth A.. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Markus., Zeglovits, Eva forthcoming. Questions about Party Competence: Insights from Cognitive Interviews. Paper presented at the 2012 Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Conference, Oxford, 7–9 September 2012.Google Scholar
Wilcox, NathanielWlezien, Christopher. 1996. ‘The Contamination of Responses to Survey Items: Economic Perceptions and Political Judgments’. Political Analysis 5(1):181–213.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. ‘On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with “Most Important Problem” ’. Electoral Studies 24:555–579.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, JohnFeldman, Stanley. 1992. ‘A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences’. American Journal of Political Science 36:579–616.Google Scholar