This article introduces the Most Important Problem Dataset (MIPD). The MIPD provides individual-level responses by Americans to “most important problem” questions from 1939 to 2015 coded into 58 different problem categories. The MIPD also contains individual-level information on demographics, economic evaluations, partisan preferences, approval and party competencies. This dataset can help answer questions about how the public prioritizes all problems, domestic and foreign, and we demonstrate how these data can shed light on how circumstances influence foreign policy attentiveness. Our exploratory analysis of foreign policy issue attention reveals some notable patterns about foreign policy public opinion. First, foreign policy issues rarely eclipse economic issues on the public’s problem agenda, so efforts to shift attention from poor economic performance to foreign policy via diversionary maneuvers are unlikely to be successful in the long term. Second, we find no evidence that partisan preferences—whether characterized as partisan identification or ideology—motivate partisans to prioritize different problems owing to perceptions of issue ownership. Instead, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, respond in similar fashions to shifting domestic and international conditions.
AldrichJHSullivanJLBorgidaE (1989) Foreign affairs and issue voting: Do presidential candidates “waltz before a blind audience”? American Political Science Review83(1): 123–141.
2.
AlmondGA (1950) The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Praeger.
3.
ArenaPPalmerG (2009) Politics or the economy? Domestic correlates of dispute involvement in developed democracies. International Studies Quarterly53: 955–975.
4.
BartleJLaycockS (2012) Telling more than they can know? Does the most important issue really reveal what is most important to voters? Electoral Studies31: 679–688.
5.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (2002) Policy Dynamics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BruleDJHwangW (2010) Diverting the legislature: Executive–legislative relations, the economy, and US uses of force. International Studies Quarterly54: 361–379.
8.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMCWhiteleyPF (2009) Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DeRouenK (1995) The indirect link: Politics, the economy, and the use of force. The Journal of Conflict Resolution39: 671–695.
10.
DownesABSechserTS (2012) The illusion of democratic credibility. International Organization66(Summer): 457–489.
11.
DuchRMStevensonRT (2008) Voting in Context: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition the Economic Vote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
FearonJD (1994) Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88: 577–592.
13.
FordhamB (1998) Partisanship, macroeconomic policy, and US uses of force, 1949–1994. The Journal of Conflict Resolution42: 418–439.
14.
FournierPBlaisANadeauRGidengilENevitteN (2003) Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior25: 51–67.
15.
GowaJ (1998) Politics at the water’s edge: Parties, voters, and the use of force abroad. International Organization52: 307–324.
16.
GriesPH (2014) The Politics of American Foreign Policy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
HoboltSKlemmensenR (2008) Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies41: 309–337.
18.
HolstiOR (2004) Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
19.
JenningsWWlezienC (2011) Distinguishing between most important problems and issues? Public Opinion Quarterly3(75): 545–555.
20.
JenningsWWlezienC (2015) Preferences, problems and representation. Political Science Research and Methods3(3): 659–681.
21.
JonesBD (1994) Reconceiving Decision-making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
JungSC (2014) Foreign targets and diversionary conflict. International Studies Quarterly58: 566–578.
24.
KochMT (2009) Governments, partisanship, and foreign policy: The case of dispute duration. Journal of Peace Research46: 1–19.
25.
KrosnickJA (1988) The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55: 196–210.
26.
LauRR (1989) Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior11(1): 5–32.
27.
LavineHSullivanJLBorgidaEThomsenCJ (1996) The relationship of national and personal issue salience to attitude accessibility on foreign and domestic policy issues. Political Psychology17: 293–316.
28.
LippmannW (1922) Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
29.
LippmannW (1925) The Phantom Public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
30.
McDonaldMDBudgeIPenningsP (2005) Choice versus sensitivity: Party reactions to public concerns. European Journal of Political Research43(6): 845–868.
31.
MilnerHVTingleyDH (2015) Sailing the Water’s Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
MitchellSMThyneCL (2010) Contentious issues as opportunities for diversionary behavior. Conflict Management and Peace Science27: 461–485.
33.
MonroeAD (1998) Public opinion and public policy, 1980–1993. The Public Opinion Quarterly62: 6–28.
34.
MoonCSouvaM (2016) Audience costs, information, and credible commitment problems. Journal of Conflict Resolution60(3): 434–458.
35.
MorganTCAndersonCJ (1999) Domestic support and diversionary external conflict in Great Britain, 1950–1992. The Journal of Politics61: 799–814.
36.
PageBIShapiroRY (1983) Effects of public opinion on policy. The American Political Science Review77: 175–190.
37.
PageBIShapiroRY (1992) The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
PalmerGLondonTReganP (2004) What’s stopping you? The sources of political constraints on international conflict behavior in parliamentary democracies. International Interactions30: 1–24.
39.
PenningsP (2005) Parties, voters and policy priorities in the Netherlands, 1971–2002. Party Politics11(1): 29–45.
40.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–835.
41.
PickeringJKisanganiE (2005) Democracy and diversionary military intervention: Reassessing regime type and diversionary hypothesis. International Studies Quarterly46: 23–43.
42.
RabinowitzGProthroJWJacobyW (1982) Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics44: 41–63.
43.
SchultzKA (1998) Domestic opposition and signaling in international crises. The American Political Science Review92(4): 829–844.
44.
SchultzK (2001) Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
SingerMM (2011) Who says “it’s the economy”? Cross-national and cross-individual variation in the salience of economic performance. Comparative Political Studies44: 284–312.
46.
SingerMM (2013) The global economic crisis and domestic political agendas. Electoral Studies32: 404–410.
47.
SnyderJBorghardED (2011) The cost of empty threats: A penny, not a pound. American Political Science Review105(3): 437–456.
48.
SorokaSN (2003) Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. Press/Politics8: 27–48.
49.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
50.
UrbatschR (2010) Isolationism and domestic politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution54(3): 471–492.
51.
UzonyiGSouvaMGolderSN (2012) Domestic institutions and credible signals. International Studies Quarterly56: 765–776.
52.
VolkensABaraJBudgeIMcDonaldMD (2014) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
WilliamsLK (2014) Hawks, doves, and opportunistic opposition parties. Journal of Peace Research51(1): 111–125.
54.
WilliamsLKBruleDJ (2014) Predictably unpredictable: The effects of conflict involvement on the error variance of vote models. British Journal of Political Science44: 287–299.
55.
WlezienC (2005) On the salience of political issues: The problem with the “Most Important Problem”. Electoral Studies24: 555–579.
56.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: 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.
