Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: Evidence from Norway, France, and the USA

European Journal of Political Research - 2001
Samuel Merrill1, Bernard Grofman2, James Adams3
1Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, USA
2School of Social Sciences, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, USA
3Department of Political Science, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, USA

Tóm tắt

In the standard Downsian model, voters are assumed to choose parties based onthe extent of ideological proximity between the voter's own position and that ofthe party. Yet it is also well known that there are rationalization and projectioneffects such that voters tend to misestimate the policy platforms of candidates orparties to which they are sympathetic by overstating the correspondence betweenthose positions and the voter's own preferences (see, e.g., Markus & Converse1979; Granberg & Brent 1980; Granberg & Holmberg 1988; Merrill & Grofman1999). Here we follow insights in the psychological literature on persuasion (Sherif& Hovland 1961; Parducci & Marshall 1962) by distinguishing between assimilationand contrast effects. Assimilation refers to shortening the perceived ideologicaldistance between oneself and parties whom one favors; contrast refers to exaggeratingthe distance to parties for whom one does not intend to vote. Using survey data on voterself-placements and party placements on ideological scales for the seven major Norwegianparties, five major French parties, and two major American parties we show that bothassimilation and contrast effects are present in each country to a considerable degree.We also investigate the possible effects of randomness in party placement and scaleinterpretation – effects that can easily be confounded with assimilation but not so easilywith contrast.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Aardal, B. (1990). The Norwegian parliamentary election of 1989, Electoral Studies 9: 151–158.

Alvarez, M. (1997). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Budge, I. (1994). A new theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology, and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally, British Journal of Political Science 24: 443–467.

Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

Conover, P.& Feldman, S. (1986). The role of inference in the perception of political candidates, in R. Lau & D. Sears (eds.), Political cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper&Row.

Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gerber, A.& Green, D. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias, Annual Review of Political Science 2: 189–210.

Granberg, D. (1983). Preference, expectations, and placement judgments: Some evidence from Sweden, Social Psychology Quarterly 46: 363–368.

Granberg, D. (1987). A contextual effect in political perception and self-placement on an ideology scale: Comparative analyses of Sweden and the USA, Scandinavian Political Studies 10: 39–60.

Granberg, D.& Brent, E. (1980). Perceptions and issue positions of presidential candidates, American Scientist68: 617–685.

Granberg, D.& Brown, T. (1992). The perception of ideological distance, Western Political Quarterly 45: 727–750.

Granberg, D., Harris, W. & King, M. (1981). Assimilation but little contrast in the 1976 US presidential election, The Journal of Psychology 108: 241–247.

Granberg, D.& Holmberg, S. (1988). The political system matters: Social psychology and voting behavior in Sweden and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Granberg, D.& Jenks, R. (1977). Assimilation and contrast effects in the 1972 election, Human Relations30: 623–640.

Grofman, B. (1985). The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting, Journal of Politics 47: 231–237.

Grofman, B. (1987). Models of voting, in S. Long (ed.), Micropolitics Annual (pp. 37–61), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hamill, R., Lodge, M.& Blake, F. (1985). The breadth, depth and utility of class, partisan and ideological schemata, American Journal of Political Science 2: 850–870.

Hoch, S. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 221–234.

Husted, T., Kenny, L.& Morton, R. (1995). Constituent errors in assessing their senators, Public Choice83: 251–271.

Iversen, T. (1994a). Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: A test of three models of voting, American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.

Iversen, T. (1994b). The logics of electoral politics: Spatial, directional, and mobilizational effects, Comparative Political Studies 27: 155–189.

Lacy, D.& Paolino. P. (1998). Downsian voting and the separation of powers, American Journal of Political Science 42: 1180–1199.

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B.& Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign, 2nd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.

Listhaug, O., Macdonald, S.& Rabinowitz, G. (1994a). Ideology and party support in comparative perspective, European Journal of Political Research 25: 111–149.

Listhaug, O., Macdonald, S.& Rabinowitz, G. (1994b). Issue perceptions of parties and candidates - A comparison of Norway and the United States, Scandinavian Political Studies 17: 273–287.

Macdonald, S.& Rabinowitz, G. (1998). Solving the paradox of nonconvergence: Valence, position, and direction in democratic politics, Electoral Studies 17: 281–300.

Macdonald, S., Rabinowitz, G.& Listhaug, O. (2000). Owning up to history. Paper presented at the 2000 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

Markus, G.& Converse, P. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice, American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.

Merrill, S.& Grofman, B. (1997a). Directional and proximity models of voter utility and choice: A new synthesis and an illustrative test of competing models, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9: 25–48.

Merrill, S.& Grofman, B. (1997b). Response to Macdonald and Rabinowitz, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9:57–60.

Merrill, S.& Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting: Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page, B. (1976). The theory of political ambiguity, American Political Science Review 70: 742–752.

Page, B.& Jones, C. (1979). Reciprocal effects of policy preference, party loyalties, and the vote, American Political Science Review 73: 1071–1089.

Parducci, A.& Marshall, L. (1962). Assimilation v. contrast in the anchoring of perceptual judgments of weight, Journal of Experimental Psychology 63: 426–437.

Rabinowitz, G.& Macdonald, S. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting, American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.

Sartori, G. (1966). European parties: The case of polarized pluralism. In LaPolambara and Neiner (eds.), Political parties and political development (pp. 137–176). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shepsle, K. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity, American Political Science Review 66: 1039–1058.

Sherif, M.& Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Strø m, K. (1985). Party goals and government performance in parliamentary democracies, American Political Science Review79: 738–754.

Urwin, D. (1997). The Norwegian party system from the 1880s to the 1990s, in K. Strøm & L. Svåsand (eds.), Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway (pp. 33–60). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

van der Eijk, C.& Niemöller, B. (1983). Electoral change in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: CT Press.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

European Journal of Political Research

Thông tin tác giả