This article is about responses to the “most important issue” question used in numerous election polls and surveys. Following Wlezien’s work, two interpretations of the question can be sketched: (1) personal (the issue most important to the respondent) and (2) contextual (the issue that respondents perceive as topping the national political agenda). Using British Election Study data from 2005, the author shows that issues prominent in that campaign were often cited as most important by respondents who were neither particularly knowledgeable about those issues nor particularly influenced by them when voting. In sum, the contextual interpretation predominates. Hence, whatever else it is, “most important issue” is not an accurate gauge of salience effects in models of vote choice.
Abramowitz, Alan.1995. It’s abortion, stupid: Policy voting in the 1992 presidential election. Journal of Politics57:176-86.
2.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm.2002. Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Andersen, Robert, Anthony Heath, and Richard Sinnott .2002. Political knowledge and electoral choice. British Elections and Parties Review12:11-27.
4.
Bartle, John.2000. Political awareness, opinion constraint and the stability of ideological positions. Political Studies48:467-84.
5.
Boyd, Richard W., and Steven Wengrovitz .2005. The elusive concept of issue publics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
6.
Brandenburg, Heinz.2005. Party strategy and media bias: A quantitative analysis of the 2005 UK election campaign. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties Specialist Group, Colchester, UK.
7.
Brians, Craig L., and Martin P. Wattenberg .1996. Campaign issue knowledge and salience. American Journal of Political Science40:172-93.
8.
Budge, Ian.1993. Issues, dimensions and agenda change in postwar democracies . In Agenda formation, ed. William Riker, 41-80. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Butler, David, and Donald E. Stokes .1969. Political change in Britain . London: Macmillan.
10.
Clarke, Harold D., David Sanders, Marianne C. Stewart, and Paul Whiteley.2004. Political choice in Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Converse, Philip E.1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter, 206-61. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
12.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter.1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Druckman, James N.2004. Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a U.S. Senate election . Political Psychology25:577-94.
14.
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert Simon.1984. Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Robert Andersen .2005. The impact of party leaders . In Britain votes 2005, ed. Pippa Norris and Christopher Wlezien, 162-80. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Robert Andersen.2006. The political conditioning of economic perceptions. Journal of Politics68:194-207.
17.
Gershkoff, Amy.2005. The importance of properly measuring importance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, Miami Beach, FL.
18.
Glasgow, Garrett.1999. Issue publics in American politics. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
19.
Green, Jane.2007. When parties and voters agree: Valence issues and party competition. Political Studies55:629-55.
20.
Heath, Anthony, Roger Jowell, and John Curtice.1985. How Britain votes. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
21.
Heath, Anthony, Roger Jowell, and John Curtice.2001. The rise of New Labour. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
Hill, Jennifer L., and Hanspeter Kriesi .2001. An extension and test of Converse’s "black-and-white" model of response stability. American Political Science Review95:397-413.
23.
Hinckley, Barbara, Richard Hofstetter, and John Kessel.1974. Information and the vote: A comparative electoral study. American Politics Quarterly2:131-58.
24.
Hobolt, Sara B., and Robert Klemmensen .2005. Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies53: 379-402.
25.
Hutchings, Vincent L.2001. Political context, issue salience, and selective attentiveness . Journal of Politics63:846-68.
26.
Hutchings, Vincent L.2003. Public opinion and democratic accountability: How citizens learn about politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Inglehart, Ronald.1985. Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems. American Political Science Review79:97-116.
28.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder .1987. News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Krosnick, Jon A.1988. The role of attitude importance in social evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55:196-210.
30.
Krosnick, Jon A.1990. Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior12:59-92.
31.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Martin Paldam.2000. Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies19:113-21.
32.
Lupia, Arthur, Matthew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin .2000. Elements of reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Luskin, Robert C.1987. Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science31:856-99.
34.
Malhotra, Neil, and Jon A. Krosnick .2007. The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behavior. Political Analysis15:286-323.
35.
Markus, Gregory B., and Philip E. Converse .1979. A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review73:1055-70.
36.
Miller, Arthur H., Warren E. Miller, Alden S. Raine, and Thad A. Browne .1976. A majority party in disarray . American Political Science Review70:753-78.
37.
Niemi, Richard G., and Larry M. Bartels .1985. New measures of issue salience: An evaluation. Journal of Politics47:1212-20.
38.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson .1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review84:231-59.
39.
Rabinowitz, George, James W. Prothro, and William Jacoby.1982. Salience as a factor in the impact of issues on candidate evaluation. Journal of Politics44:41-64.
40.
RePass, David E.1971. Issue salience and party choice. American Political Science Review65:389-400.
41.
Sanders, David, Harold D.Clarke, MarianneC. Stewart, and Paul Whiteley.2007. Does mode matter for modeling political choice? Evidence from the 2005 British Election Study. Political Analysis15:257-85.
42.
Saris, Willem E., and Paul M. Sniderman .2004. Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
Särlvik, Bo, and Ivor Crewe.1983. Decade of dealignment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser .1981. Questions and answers in attitude surveys. New York: Academic Press.
45.
Slovic, Paul, and Sarah Lichtenstein .1971. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance6:649-744.
46.
Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock .1991. Reasoning and choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Stokes, Donald.1963. Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57:368-77.
48.
Stokes, Donald E.1992. Valence politics. In Electoral politics , ed. Dennis Kavanagh, 141-64. Oxford , UK: Clarendon.
49.
Thomsen, Cynthia J., Eugene Borgida, and Howard Lavine.1995. The causes and consequences of personal involvement. In Attitude strength, ed. Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick, 191-214. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
Whiteley, Paul, Marianne C. Stewart, David Sanders, and Harold D. Clarke .2005. The issue agenda and voting in 2005. In Britain votes 2005, ed. Pippa Norris and Christopher Wlezien, 146-61. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
Wlezien, Christopher.2005. On the salience of political issues: The problem with "most important problem." Electoral Studies24:555-79.
52.
Wlezien, Christopher, Mark Franklin, and Daniel Twiggs.1997. Economic perceptions and vote choice: Disentangling the endogeneity. Political Behavior19:7-17.
53.
Wlezien, Christopher, and Pippa Norris.2005. Conclusion: Whether the campaign mattered and how. In Britain votes 2005, ed. Pippa Norris and Christopher Wlezien, 214-31. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
Zaller, John R.1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
