Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:41:12.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Political Psychology

Issue Publics

How Electoral Constituencies Hide in Plain Sight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2023

Timothy J. Ryan  and
J Andrew Ehlinger
Timothy J. Ryan
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
J Andrew Ehlinger
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Summary

An often-forgotten passage of Philip Converse's classic essay on mass belief systems introduced the concept of an issue public – a segment of voters that has crystallized attitudes about a particular topic. Some people deeply care about particular topics, and they might be equipped to reach judgments on these topics. This simple idea could provide an important corrective to work that casts citizens' political competence in a negative light. But, previous attempts to evaluate the issue publics hypothesis have been unsatisfying. This Element proposes and tests a new measurement approach for identifying issue publics. The evidence gathered leads to the conclusion that issue publics exist, but are smaller and more particularistic than existing scholarship presumes them to be. As such, researchers underappreciate the significance of issue opinions in electoral politics.
Get access

Keywords

issue publicspublic opinionpolitical psychologyinterest groupsissue voting
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Political Psychology
Online ISBN: 9781009242400
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 11 May 2023

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

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ahler, Douglas J., Roush, Carolyn E., and Sood, Gaurav. 2019. “The Micro-Task Market for Lemons: Data Quality on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Science Research and Methods: 1–20. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/abs/microtask-market-for-lemons-data-quality-on-amazons-mechanical-turk/B379D8827575D81857C872BB5C40B660Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Sullivan, John L., and Borgida, Eugene. 1989. “Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates ‘Waltz before a Blind Audience?’” American Political Science Review 83(1): 123–41.Google Scholar
Althaus, Scott L. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review 92(3): 545–58.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1996. “Interest Groups: Money, Information and Influence.” In Mueller, Dennis C., ed., Perspectives on Public Choice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 296–321.Google Scholar
Barbaro, Michael. 2018. “Pro-Trump, but Fearing His Tariffs.” The New York Times (April 5). www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/podcasts/the-daily/us-china-tariffs.html.Google Scholar
Barabas, Jason, Jerit, Jennifer, Pollock, William, and Rainey, Carlisle. 2014. “The Question(S) of Political Knowledge.” American Political Science Review 108(04): 840–55.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 35–50.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2016. New Directions in Public Opinion. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blumer, Herbert. 1948. “Public Opinion and Public Opinion Polling.” American Sociological Review 13(5): 542–49.Google Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2013. “Self-Interest and Attention to News among Issue Publics.” Political Communication 30(3): 329–48.Google Scholar
Brader, Ted, Tucker, Joshua A., and Duell, Dominik. 2013. “Which Parties Can Lead Opinion? Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cue Taking in Multiparty Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 46(11): 1485–517.Google Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Verba, Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E, and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Layman, Geoffrey C.. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464–77.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10(1): 103–26.Google Scholar
Chyzh, Olga V., and Urbatsch, Robert. 2021. “Bean Counters: The Effect of Soy Tariffs on Change in Republican Vote Share between the 2016 and 2018 Elections.” The Journal of Politics 83(1): 415–19.Google Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L, and Ensley, Michael J. 2015. “Motivated Reasoning and Yard-Sign-Stealing Partisans: Mine Is a Likable Rogue, Yours Is a Degenerate Criminal.” Political Behavior 38(2): 317–35.Google Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L., and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2013. “Extreme Voices.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77(4): 861–87.Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(5): 808–22.Google Scholar
Cohen, Patricia. 2019. “Pain of Tariffs Tests Farmers’ Faith in Trump: ‘How Long Is Short-Term?’” New York Times (May 24). www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/business/economy/farmers-trump-trade.html.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Apter, David E., ed., Ideology and Discontent, New York: Free Press, pp. 206–61.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1987. “Changing Conceptions of Public Opinion in the Political Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: S12–24.Google Scholar
Daniels, Jeff and Wilkie, Christina. 2019. “Trump Administration Unveils $16 Billion Bailout to Farmers Hurt by China Trade War.” CNBC.com (May 23). www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/trump-to-give-16-billion-to-farmers-hurt-by-trade-war-sonny-perdue.html.Google Scholar
Davey, Monica and Cohen, Patricia. 2018. “Trade War Prospect Shakes Part of Trump Base: Midwest Farmers.” New York Times. (March 10). www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/business/economy/tariffs-farmers.html.Google Scholar
Delli-Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Delton, Andrew W., DeScioli, Peter, and Ryan, Timothy J.. 2020. “Moral Obstinacy in Political Negotiations.” Political Psychology 41(1): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” The Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041–66.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)Relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98(4): 671–86.Google Scholar
Ehlinger, J. 2019. “That’s Where I Draw the Line! How Issue Publics Can Overcome Partisan Tribalism.” MA Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James A. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard E. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1989. “Measuring Issue Preferences: The Problem of Response Instability.” In Stimson, James A., ed., Political Analysis: An Annual Publication of the Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, Vol. 1, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 25–60.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony. 2020. “Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 15(2): 141–79.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 4, pp. 217–34.Google Scholar
Gershkoff, Amy R. 2006. “How Issue Interest Can Rescue the American Public.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95(2): 379–96.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin 2019. “Citizen Competence and Democratic Governance.” In Berinsky, Adam, ed., New Directions in Public Opinion, New York: Routledge, pp. 41–72.Google Scholar
Graham, Matthew H, and Svolik, Milan W. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114(2): 392–409.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Steven. 1990. “Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach.” Political Psychology 20(2): 393–403.Google Scholar
Guntermann, Eric, and Lenz, Gabriel. 2022. “Still Not Important Enough? COVID-19 Policy Views and Vote Choice.” Perspectives on Politics 20(2): 547–61.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2015. “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants: The Hidden American Immigration Consensus.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 529–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Deardorff, Alan V.. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review 100(1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanretty, Chris, Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Vivyan, Nick. 2020. “A Choice-Based Measure of Issue Importance in the Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 64(3): 519–35.Google Scholar
Hauser, David J., and Schwarz, Norbert. 2016. “Attentive Turkers: MTurk Participants Perform Better on Online Attention Checks than Do Subject Pool Participants.” Behavior Research Methods 48(1): 400–07.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, Michael. 2014. “Issue Publics, Campaigns, and Political Knowledge.” Political Behavior 36(3): 631–57.Google Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hirtzer, Michael. 2019. “Soybeans Slump to Lowest in a Decade as Trade War Intensified.” Bloomberg (May 13). www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-13/grain-soy-soybeans-at-decade-low-amid-trade-war-pig-fever-woes#xj4y7vzkg.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana, and Lene, Aarøe. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Hutchings, Vincent L. 2003. Public Opinion and Democratic Accountability: How Citizens Learn about Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. “Shortcuts to Political Knowledge: The Role of Selective Attention and Accessibility.” In Ferejohn, John A., and Kuklinsky, James H., eds., Information and Democratic Processes, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 160–85.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22(1): 129–46.Google Scholar
Johns, Robert. 2010. “Measuring Issue Salience in British Elections: Competing Interpretations of ‘Most Important Issue.’” Political Research Quarterly 63(1): 143–58.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard. 2006. “Party Identification: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences?” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 329–51.Google Scholar
Jones, Jeffrey. 2018. “U.S. Preference for Stricter Gun Laws Highest Since 1993.” Gallup.com. (March 14). https://news.gallup.com/poll/229562/preference-stricter-gun-laws-highest-1993.aspx.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27(2): 163–82.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Ryan, Clifford, Scott, Burleigh, Tyler et al. 2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods 8(4): 614–29.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In Gilbert, Daniel, Fiske, Susan, and Linzey, G, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 778–867.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kitroeff, Natalie. 2019. “Caught in the Middle of the Trade War.” The New York Times (May 16). www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/podcasts/the-daily/trump-tariffs-china-trade-war.html?.Google Scholar
Kollman, Ken. 1998. Outside Lobbying. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1990. “Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America.” Political Behavior 12(1): 59–92.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Ryan, John Barry. 2022. The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kujala, Jordan. 2020. “Donors, Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science 64(3): 587–602.Google Scholar
Lacombe, Matthew J. 2019. “The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: The National Rifle Association’s Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity.” The Journal of Politics, pp. 1342–56Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas J., and Robison, Joshua. 2020. “More Important, but for What Exactly? The Insignificant Role of Subjective Issue Importance in Vote Decisions.” Political Behavior 42(1): 239–59.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lippman, Walter. 1925. The Phantom Public. New Brunswisck, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madson, Gabriel J. 2021. “How Voters Use Issues.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University.Google Scholar
Maggiotto, Michael A., and Piereson, James E.. 1978. “Issue Publics and Voter Choice.” American Politics Quarterly 6(4): 407–28.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B, and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73(4): 1055–70.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I, and Brody, Richard A. 1972. “Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue.” American Political Science Review 66(3): 979–95.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I, and Shapiro, Robert Y. 1992. The Rational Public, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pérez, Efrén O. 2015. “Mind the Gap: Why Large Group Deficits in Political Knowledge Emerge – And What to Do about Them.” Political Behavior 37(4): 933–54.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and Krosnick, Jon A, eds. 1995. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Washington, DC: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent, and Zaller, John R. 1993. “Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57(2): 133–64.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2019. Hooked: How Politics Captures People’s Interest. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Prothro, James W., and Jacoby, William. 1982. “Salience as a Factor in the Impact of Issues on Candidate Evaluation.” The Journal of Politics 44(1): 41–63.Google Scholar
Rasinski, Kenneth A. 1989. “The Effect of Question Wording on Public Support for Government Spending.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53(3): 388–94.Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. 2014. “Reconsidering Moral Issues in Politics.” The Journal of Politics 76(2): 380–97.Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. 2017. “No Compromise: Political Consequences of Moralized Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 61(2): 409–23.Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy J. 2019. “Actions versus Consequences in Political Arguments: Insights from Moral Psychology.” The Journal of Politics 81(2): 426–40.Google Scholar
Shapero, Julia. 2022. “Republican Senators Face Pushback from Both Sides on Gun Control.” Axios (June 19). www.axios.com/2022/06/19/republican-gun-bill-pushback.Google Scholar
Simonovits, Gabor, McCoy, Jennifer, and Littvay, Levente. 2022. “Democratic Hypocrisy and Out-Group Threat: Explaining Citizen Support for Democratic Erosion.” The Journal of Politics: 719009.Google Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John, Piereson, James, and Marcus, George E.. 1979. “An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases 1950s–1970s.” American Political Science Review 73(3): 781–94.Google Scholar
Swanson, Ana. 2018. “Trump to Impose Sweeping Steel and Aluminum Tariffs.” The New York Times (March 1). www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/trump-tariffs.html.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., Cann, Damon, and Kucsova, Simona. 2009. “The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments.” Political Behavior 31: 137–55.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Robert, P. Houweling, Van. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103(1): 83–98.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, and Rasinski, Kenneth A.. 1988. “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 299–314.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, Penny S., Bizer, George Y., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2006. “Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength-Related Attitude Attributes.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 1–67.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 2005. “On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘Most Important Problem’.” Electoral Studies 24(4): 555–79.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R., and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36(3): 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Bingbing, and Gearhart, Sherice. 2020. “Collecting Online Survey Data: A Comparison of Data Quality among a Commercial Panel & MTurk.” Survey Practice 13(1): 1–10.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Issue Publics
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Issue Publics
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Issue Publics
Available formats
×