Since Converse’s paper, opinion constraint has been defined as the degree to which voters hold ideologically consistent opinions across different issues. Yet, scholars have found that opinions departing from the liberal/conservative categories constitute alternative ways of organizing political preferences. This suggests a methodological dilemma: how can we assess the consistency of opinions based on empirical, rather than theoretically predefined, criteria? This article proposes measuring constraint as the extent to which citizens’ policy preferences resemble those of their most preferred political parties (a top-down approach). To do so, it relies on data from the 2019 European Election Studies and the 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey. Analyses show that a top-down measure of opinion constraint correlates weakly with pre-existing measures of this concept (discriminant validation). Findings also suggest that well-established hypotheses about the predictors and effects of constraint are confirmed when using the top-down measure (nomological validation).
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. American Political Science Review95 (3): 529–546.
2.
AndréADepauwS (2017) The Quality of Representation and Satisfaction with Democracy: The Consequences of Citizen-Elite Policy and Process Congruence. Political Behavior39 (2): 377–397.
3.
AnsolabehereSRoddenJSnyderJM (2008) The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting. American Political Science Review102 (2): 215–232.
4.
BakkerRHoogheLJollyS, et al. (2020) 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (Version 2019.1). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
5.
BaldassarriDGelmanA (2008) Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology114 (2): 408–446.
6.
BaldassarriDGoldbergA (2014) Neither Ideologues nor Agnostics: Alternative Voters’ Belief System in an Age of Partisan Politics. American Journal of Sociology120 (1): 45–95.
7.
BartleJ (2000) Political Awareness, Opinion Constraint and the Stability of Ideological Positions. Political Studies48 (3): 467–484.
8.
BartonAHParsonsRW (1977) Measuring Belief System Structure. Public Opinion Quarterly41 (2): 159.
9.
BoutylineAVaiseyS (2017) Belief Network Analysis: A Relational Approach to Understanding the Structure of Attitudes. American Journal of Sociology122 (5): 1371–1447.
10.
ConoverPJFeldmanS (1984) How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model. American Journal of Political Science28 (1): 95–126.
11.
ConversePE (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Critical Review18 (1–3): 1–74.
12.
CoppockAGreenDP (2022) Do Belief Systems Exhibit Dynamic Constraint?The Journal of Politics84 (2): 725–738.
13.
CuriniL (2010) Experts’ Political Preferences and Their Impact on Ideological Bias: An Unfolding Analysis Based on a Benoit-Laver Expert Survey. Party Politics16 (3): 299–321.
14.
DaltonR (2020) The Representation Gap and Political Sophistication: A Contrarian Perspective. Comparative Political Studies54: 889–917.
15.
DaltonRMcAllisterIWattenbergMP (2000) The Consequences of Partisan Dealignment. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds) Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.37–62.
16.
DassonnevilleR (2012) Electoral Volatility, Political Sophistication, Trust and Efficacy: A Study on Changes in Voter Preferences during the Belgian Regional Elections of 2009. Acta Politica47 (1): 18–41.
17.
DassonnevilleR (2014) Political Sophistication and Vote Intention Switching: The Timing of Electoral Volatility in the 2009 German Election Campaign. German Politics23 (3): 174–195.
18.
De SioLFranklinMN (2012) Strategic Incentives, Issue Proximity and Party Support in Europe. West European Politics35 (6): 1363–1385.
19.
de VriesCEvan der BrugWvan EgmondMH, et al. (2011) Individual and Contextual Variation in EU Issue Voting: The Role of Political Information. Electoral Studies30 (1): 16–28.
20.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. Yale University Press.
21.
DruckmanJNLupiaA (2000) Preference Formation. Annual Review of Political Science3 (1): 1–24.
22.
EckerAJennyMMüllerWC, et al. (2022) How and Why Party Position Estimates from Manifestos, Expert, and Party Elite Surveys Diverge: A Comparative Analysis of the ‘Left–Right’ and the ‘European Integration’ Dimensions. Party Politics28 (3): 528–540.
23.
EndersAM (2019) Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Constraint. Public Opinion Quarterly83 (3): 510–533.
24.
FedericoCMHuntCV (2013) Political Information, Political Involvement, and Reliance on Ideology in Political Evaluation. Political Behavior35 (1): 89–112.
25.
FreezeMMontgomeryJ (2015) Static Stability and Evolving Constraint: Preference Stability and Ideological Structure in the Mass Public. American Politics Research44 (3): 415–447.
26.
GerberDNicoletSSciariniP (2015) Voters Are Not Fools, or Are They? Party Profile, Individual Sophistication and Party Choice. European Political Science Review7 (1): 145–165.
27.
GordonSBSeguraGM (1997) Cross–National Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice?The Journal of Politics59 (1): 126–147.
28.
HurwitzJPeffleyMA (1987) A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint. American Journal of Political Science29 (4): 1100–1120.
29.
JacksonTHMarcusGE (1975) Political Competence and Ideological Constraint. Social Science Research4 (2): 93–111.
30.
JuddCMKrosnickJA (1989) The Structural Bases of Consistency among Political Attitudes: Effects of Expertise and Attitude Importance. In: GreenwaldAPratkanisABrecklerSJ (eds) Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.99–128.
31.
KinderDR (1982) Enough Already about Ideology: The Many Bases of American Public Opinion. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, CO, 1–4September.
32.
KinderDR (1998) Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics. In: GilbertDTFiskeSTLindzeyG (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp.778–867.
33.
KozlowskiACMurphyJP (2021) Issue Alignment and Partisanship in the American Public: Revisiting the ‘partisans without Constraint’ Thesis. Social Science Research94: 102498.
34.
KuklinskiJHLuskinRCBollandJ (1991) Where Is the Schema? Going Beyond the ‘S’ Word in Political Psychology. American Political Science Review85 (4): 1341–1380.
35.
LachatR (2007) A Heterogeneous Electorate. Political Sophistication, Predisposition Strength and the Voting Decision Process. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
36.
LauRRPatelPFahmyDF, et al. (2014) Correct Voting Across Thirty-Three Democracies: A Preliminary Analysis. British Journal of Political Science44 (2): 239–259.
37.
LeeperTJSlothuusR (2014) Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation. Political Psychology35: 129–156.
38.
LevenduskyMS (2009) Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization. Political Behaviour32 (1): 111–131.
LuptonRNMyersWMThorntonJR (2015) Political Sophistication and the Dimensionality of Elite and Mass Attitudes, 1980−2004. The Journal of Politics77 (2): 368–380.
41.
LuskinRC (1987) Measuring Political Sophistication. American Journal of Political Science31 (4): 856–899.
42.
LuskinRC (1990) Explaining Political Sophistication. Political Behavior12 (4): 331–361.
43.
MarcusGETabbDSullivanJL (1974) The Application of Individual Differences Scaling to the Measurement of Political Ideologies. American Journal of Political Science18 (2): 405–420.
44.
NieNVerbaSPetrocikJR (1976) The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
45.
PetersenMBSlothuusRTogebyL (2010) Political Parties and Value Consistency in Public Opinion Formation. Public Opinion Quarterly74 (3): 530–550.
46.
PierceJC (1970) Party Identification and the Changing Role of Ideology in American Politics. Midwest Journal of Political Science14 (1): 25.
47.
PiurkoYSchwartzSHDavidovE (2011) Basic Personal Values and the Meaning of Left-Right Political Orientations in 20 Countries. Political Psychology32 (4): 537–561.
48.
SchmittHHoboltSBBrugW, et al. (2022) European Parliament Election Study 2019, Voter Study. GESIS, Cologne. ZA7581 Data file Version 2.0.1, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13846
49.
SeebergHBSlothuusRStubagerR (2017) Do Voters Learn? Evidence that Voters Respond Accurately to Changes in Political Parties’ Policy Positions. West European Politics40 (2): 336–356.
50.
SlothuusR (2010) When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Political Communication27 (2): 158–177.
51.
SlothuusRBisgaardM (2021) How Political Parties Shape Public Opinion in the Real World. American Journal of Political Science65 (4): 896–911.
52.
SlothuusRDe VreeseCH (2010) Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects. The Journal of Politics72 (3): 630–645.
53.
SnidermanPM (2017) The Democratic Faith: Essays on Democratic Citizenship. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
SturgisPRobertsCAllumN (2005) A Different Take on the Deliberative Poll: Information, Deliberation, and Attitude Constraint. Public Opinion Quarterly69 (1): 30–65.
TreierSHillygusDS (2009) The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly73 (4): 679–703.
57.
ValentinoNATraugottMWHutchingsVL (2002) Group Cues and Ideological Constraint: A Replication of Political Advertising Effects Studies in the Lab and in the Field. Political Communication19 (1): 29–48.
58.
Van der BrugWVan SpanjeJ (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘New’ Cultural Dimension. European Journal of Political Research48 (3): 309–334.
59.
Van der EijkC (2017) Selecting the Dependent Variable in Electoral Studies: Choice or Preference? In: FisherJFieldhouseEFranklinMN, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.445–457.
60.
Van der EijkCFranklinM (1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
61.
Van der EijkCvan der BrugWKrohM, et al. (2006) Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Voting Behavior: On the Measurement and Analysis of Electoral Utilities. Electoral Studies25 (3): 424–447.
62.
WeissbergR (1976) Consensual Attitudes and Attitude Structure. Public Opinion Quarterly40 (3): 349–359.
63.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
