In this article, we argue that voters use party positions on an issue dimension as a heuristic device to locate parties on other dimensions on which they have less information about. We confirm our argument by fielding two survey experiments in a context with two distinct issue dimensions: the left-right and national dimensions in Catalonia. We find that the position of a hypothetical (but plausible) candidate on a national dimension exerts a great deal of influence on where respondents locate him on the left-right dimension, as well as on a more narrowly-defined socioeconomic dimension, but that the left-right position does not affect the perceived placement on the national divide. This asymmetry can be partly explained by the different nature of these issue domains, and specifically by the distinct ability of the national dimension to activate social group cues that give rise to projection biases. These findings have important implications for our understanding of issue misperceptions and of the strategic choices available to parties in multidimensional policy spaces. The nature of the issue dimension could facilitate why some issue dimensions tend to function as cue givers and others as cue receivers. We discuss the implications of our findings in constraining the strategies available to parties in multidimensional contexts.
AbelsonRPRosenbergMJ (1958) Symbolic psycho-logic: a model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science3: 1–8.
2.
AdamsJEzrowLWlezienC (2016) The company you keep: How voters infer party positions on European integration from governing coalition arrangements. American Journal of Political Science60(4): 811–823.
3.
AlbrightJJ (2010) The multidimensional nature of party competition. Party Politics16(6): 699–719.
4.
BartelsLM (1986) Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test. American Journal of Political Science30(4): 709–728.
5.
BordaloPCoffmanKGennaioliN, et al. (2016) Stereotypes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics131(4): 1753–1794.
6.
BudgeIMcDonaldMPenningsP, et al. (2012) Organizing Democratic Choice: Party Representation Over Time. Comparative Politics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1989) Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8.
ConoverPJFeldmanS (1989) Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science33(4): 912–940.
9.
ConversePE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: ApterDE (ed), Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 206–261.
10.
DaltonRJFarrellDMMcAllisterI (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
De VriesCEHakhverdianALanceeB (2013) The dynamics of voters’ left/right identification: the role of economic and cultural attitudes. Political Science Research and Methods1(2): 223–238.
12.
De VriesCEMarksG (2012) The struggle over dimensionality: a note on theory and empirics. European Union Politics13(2): 185–193.
13.
DinasE (2012) Left and right in the Basque Country and Catalonia: the meaning of ideology in a nationalist context. South European Society and Politics17(3): 467–485.
14.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
15.
EliasASzöcsikEZuberCI (2015) Position, selective emphasis and framing: How parties deal with a second dimension in competition. Party Politics21(6): 839–850.
16.
Falcó-GimenoAMuñozJ (2017) Show me your friends: A survey experiment on the effect of coalition signals. The Journal of Politics79(4): 1454–1459.
17.
FeldmanSConoverPJ (1983) Candidates, issues and voters: the role of inference in political perception. The Journal of Politics45(4): 810–839.
18.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
19.
FreedenM (1998) Is nationalism a distinct ideology?Political Studies46(4): 748–765.
20.
FuchsDKlingemannH-D (1990) The left-right schema. In: JenningsMKvan DethJWBarnesSH, et al. (eds), Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 203–234.
21.
GrandPTiemannG (2013) Projection effects and specification bias in spatial models of European parliament elections. European Union Politics14(4): 497–521.
22.
GranbergDHolmbergS (1986) Political perception among voters in Sweden and the US: analyses of issues with explicit alternatives. Western Political Quarterly39(1): 7–28.
23.
GranbergDKasmerJNannemanT (1988) An empirical examination of two theories of political perception. The Western Political Quarterly41(1): 29–46.
24.
HeiderF (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Psychology Press.
25.
HoogheLMarksG (2009) A post functionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science39(1): 1–23.
26.
InglehartRKlingemannH-D (1976) Party identification, ideological preferences and the left-right dimension among Western Mass Publics. In: BudgeICreweIFarlieD (eds), Party Identification and Beyond: Representations of Voting and Party Competition. London: Wiley.
27.
JacobsmeierML (2013) Religion and perceptions of candidates’ ideologies in United States House elections. Politics and Religion6(02): 342–372.
28.
JacobsmeierML (2015) From Black and White to left and right: race, perceptions of candidates’ ideologies, and voting behavior in US House elections. Political Behavior37(3): 595–621.
29.
JefferyCHoughD (2003) Regional elections in multi-level systems. European Urban and Regional Studies10(3): 199–212.
30.
JuddCMKennyDAKrosnickJA (1983) Judging the positions of political candidates: models of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44(5): 952–963.
31.
KitscheltHHellemansS (1990) The left-right semantics and the new politics cleavage. Comparative Political Studies23(2): 210–238.
32.
KlingemannH-D (1979) Measuring ideological conceptualizations. In: BarnesSHKaaseM (eds), Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. London: Sage.
33.
KnutsenO (1995) Value orientations, political conflicts and left-right identification: a comparative study. European Journal of Political Research28(1): 63–93.
34.
KnutsenO (1997) The partisan and the value-based component of left-right self-placement: a comparative study. International Political Science Review18(2): 191–225.
35.
KochJW (2000) Do citizens apply gender stereotypes to infer candidates’ ideological orientations?The Journal of Politics62(2): 414–429.
36.
KochJW (2002) Gender stereotypes and citizens’ impressions of house candidates’ ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science46(2): 453–462.
37.
KriesiHGrandeELachatR, et al. (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research45(6): 921–956.
38.
KriesiHGrandeELachatR, et al. (2008) West European Politics in the Age Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
KrosnickJA (1990) Americans’ perceptions of presidential candidates: a test of the projection hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues46(2): 159–182.
40.
KrosnickJA (2002) The challenges of political psychology: lessons to be learned from research on attitude perceptions. In: KuklinskiJH (ed), Thinking About Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–152.
41.
KuklinskiJHHurleyNL (1994) On hearing and interpreting political messages: a cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. The Journal of Politics56(3): 729–751.
42.
LodgeMHamillR (1986) A partisan schema for political information processing. The American Political Science Review80(2): 505–520.
43.
MairP (2007) Left-right orientations. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
MarksGSteenbergenM (2002) Understanding political contestation in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies35(8): 879–892.
45.
MarksGHoogheLNelsonM, et al. (2006) Party competition and European integration in the East and West: different structure, same causality. Comparative Political Studies39(2): 155–175.
46.
McDermottML (1997) Voting cues in low-information elections: candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 270–283.
47.
McDermottML (1998) Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly51(4): 895–918.
48.
McDermottML (2009) Religious stereotyping and voter support for evangelical candidates. Political Research Quarterly62(2): 340–354.
49.
McGrawKM (2011) Candidate impressions and evaluations. In: DruckmanJNGreenDPKuklinskiJH, et al. (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–200.
50.
MerrillSGrofmanB (1999) A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge University Press.
51.
MerrillSGrofmanBAdamsJ (2001) Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: evidence from Norway, France, and the USA. European Journal of Political Research40(2): 199–221.
52.
MillerAHWattenbergMPMalanchukO (1986) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. The American Political Science Review80(2): 521–540.
53.
MillerWEStokesDE (1963) Constituency influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
54.
MuñozJ (2009) From national-catholicism to democratic patriotism? Democratization and reconstruction of national pride: the case of Spain (1981–2000). Ethnic and Racial Studies32(4): 616–639.
55.
NoelH (2013) Which long coalition? The creation of the anti-slavery coalition. Party Politics19(6): 962–984.
56.
OsgoodTMUpshawHS (1955) The principle of congruity and the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review62: 42–55.
57.
PageBI (1976) The theory of political ambiguity. The American Political Science Review70(3): 742–752.
58.
RabinowitzGMacdonaldSE (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. The American Political Science Review83(1): 93–121.
59.
RahnWM (1993) The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science37(2): 472–496.
60.
RahnWMKrosnickJABreuningM (1994) Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science38(3): 582–600.
61.
RicoGJenningsMK (2012) The intergenerational transmission of contending place identities. Political Psychology33(5): 723–742.
62.
RicoGJenningsMK (2016) The formation of left-right identification: pathways and correlates of parental influence. Political Psychology37(2): 237–252.
63.
RovnyJ (2015) Riker and Rokkan: remarks on the strategy and structure of party competition. Party Politics21(6): 912–918.
64.
SaniGSartoriG (1983) Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies. In: DaalderHMairP (eds), Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change. London: Sage, pp. 307–340.
65.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
67.
ShepsleKA (1972) The strategy of ambiguity: uncertainty and electoral competition. American Political Science Review66(2): 555–568.
68.
SherifMHovlandCI (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
69.
SigelmanCKSigelmanLWalkoszBJ, et al. (1995) Black candidates, White voters: understanding racial bias in political perceptions. American Journal of Political Science39(1): 243–265.
70.
WeissbergR (1978) Collective vs. dyadic representation in Congress. American Political Science Review72(2): 535–547.
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.
