Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:24:09.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to “The Measurement and Stability of State Citizen Ideology”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Paul Brace ,
Kevin Arceneaux ,
Martin Johnson  and
Stacy G. Ulbig
Paul Brace
Affiliation:
Rice University
Kevin Arceneaux
Affiliation:
Temple University
Martin Johnson
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
Stacy G. Ulbig
Affiliation:
Missouri State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Writing this reply presents a challenge for us since the authors of the preceding article reinforce most of our substantive points published previously (Brace et al. 2004, 2006). In this new article, Berry et al. (2007) acknowledge that there is more cross-sectional than longitudinal variation in the Berry et al. (1998) measure of state citizen ideology and imply that researchers should take precautions not to confuse them. They admit that their measure is tapping something different from survey-based self-identification, and they also note the distinction between absolute and relative change in their ideology measure. Given our many points of agreement, this reply focuses on four key points made by Berry et al. in the preceding article on which we differ. First, we address the argument that focusing on intra-state attitude change ignores important attitude change affecting all states simultaneously. Second, we discuss Berry et al.‘s distinction between symbolic ideology and operational ideology. Third, we consider the validity and reliability of the various measures. Finally, we revisit our choice of statistical methods. Although we certainly do not conclude that Berry et al.‘s measure lacks clear utility or relevance, we believe it may serve a more limited purpose than the authors intended. We urge researchers to consider the conceptual, methodological, and epistemological concerns raised in our response before using any indicator of state public opinion.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Summer 2007 , pp. 133 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

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.)

References

Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 42:327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 2007. “The Measurement and Stability of State Citizen Ideology.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7:000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, Barry C., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. “Measuring the Ideologies of U.S. Senators: The Song Remains the Same.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:237–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul. 1984. “Progressive Ambition in the House: A Probabilistic Approach.” Journal of Politics 46:556–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Arceneaux, Kevin, Johnson, Martin, and Ulbig, Stacy G.. 2004. “Does State Political Ideology Change over Time?” Political Research Quarterly 57:529–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Arceneaux, Kevin, Johnson, Martin, and Ulbig, Stacy G.. 2006. “Correction: Does State Political Ideology Change over Time?” Political Research Quarterly 59:167–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, Langer, Laura, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2000. “Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Judges.” Journal of Politics 62:387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1981. “The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 25:617–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Kim, Soo Yeon H., and Yoon, David. 2001. “Dirty Pool.” International Organization 55:441–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2000. “Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 93:33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 1991. “Ideological Identification and Issue Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 35:178–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Martin, Brace, Paul, and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2005. “Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitudes.” Social Science Quarterly 86:87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57:45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Policies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39:981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 2001. “Zip File of the CBS/New York Times National Polls, Ideology Party Identification, 1977–1998.” http://php.indiana.edu/~wright1/ (January 5, 2007).Google Scholar