One of the most important questions in the study of democratic politics centers on how citizens consider issues and candidate positions when choosing whom to support in an election. The proximity and directional theories make fundamentally different predictions about voter behavior and imply different optimal strategies for candidates, but a longstanding literature to empirically adjudicate between the theories has yielded mixed results. We use a survey experiment to show that the way that candidates’ issue positions are described can cue citizens to choose a candidate that is preferred under the expectations of either the proximity or the directional theory. We find that directional voting is more likely when the issue scale is understood to represent degrees of intensity with which either the liberal or the conservative side of the issue is expressed and that proximity voting is more likely when an issue scale is understood to be a range of policies.
AdamsJamesBishinBenjamin G.DowJay K.2004. “Representation in Congressional Campaigns: Evidence for Discounting/Directional Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics66 (2): 348–73.
2.
BlackDuncan. 1958. Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BlaisAndréNadeauRichardGidengilElisabethNevitteNeil. 2001. “The Formation of Party Preferences: Testing the Proximity and Directional Models.” European Journal of Political Research40 (1): 81–91.
4.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
ChoSungdaiEndersbyJames W.2003. “Issues, the Spatial Theory of Voting, and British General Elections: A Comparison of Proximity and Directional Models.” Public Choice144 (3/4): 275–93.
6.
ClaassenRyan L.2007. “Ideology and Evaluation in an Experimental Setting: Comparing the Proximity and the Directional Models.” Political Research Quarterly60 (2): 263–73.
7.
ConversePhillip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavide E., 206–61. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
Current Population Survey. 2013. School Enrollment Supplement [machine-readable data file] / conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census [producer and distributor], 2014.
9.
Delli CarpiniMichael X.KeeterScott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10.
DowJay K.1998. “Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Choice in Recent US Presidential Elections.” Public Choice96 (3/4): 259–70.
11.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
12.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” Journal of Politics63 (4): 1041–66.
13.
GilljamMikael. 1997a. “Realistic Assumptions or Directional Theory?” Journal of Theoretical Politics9 (1): 23–24.
14.
GilljamMikael. 1997b. “The Directional Theory under the Looking Glass: A Reappraisal.” Journal of Theoretical Politics9 (1): 5–12.
15.
HeitEvanNicholsonStephen P.2010. “The Opposite of Republican: Polarization and Political Categorization.” Cognitive Science34:1503–16.
16.
HotellingHarold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal39 (1): 41–57.
17.
IversenTorben. 1994. “Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science38 (1): 45–74.
18.
IyengarShantoHahnKyu S.KrosnickJon A.WalkerJohn. 2008. “Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership.” Journal of Politics70 (1): 186–200.
19.
JohnstonRichardFournierPatrickJenkinsRichard. 2000. “Party Location and Party Support: Unpacking Competing Models.” Journal of Politics62 (4): 1145–60.
20.
KennyChristopherJennerEric. 2008. “Direction versus Proximity in the Social Influence Process.” Political Behavior30 (1): 73–95.
21.
Knobloch-WesterwickSilviaMengJingbo. 2009. “Looking the Other Way Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information.” Communication Research36 (3): 426–48.
22.
KrämerJürgenRattingerHans. 1997. “The Proximity and Directional Theories of Issue Voting: Comparative Results for the USA and Germany.” European Journal of Political Research32 (1): 1–27.
23.
KrosnickJon A.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 (2): 196–210.
24.
KrosnickJon A.1990. “Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America.” Political Behavior12 (1): 59–92.
25.
KrosnickJon A.BerentMatthew K.BoningerDavid S.1994. “Pockets of Responsibility in the American Electorate: Findings of a Research Program on Attitude Importance.” Political Communication11 (3): 391–411.
26.
LacyDeanPaolinoPhilip. 2010. “Testing Proximity versus Directional Voting Using Experiments.” Electoral Studies29 (3): 460–71.
27.
LewisJeffery B.KingGary. 1999. “No Evidence on Directional vs. Proximity Voting.” Political Analysis8 (1): 21–33.
28.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineListhaugOlaRabinowitzGeorge. 1991. “Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems.” American Political Science Review85 (4): 1107–31.
29.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorgeListhaugOla. 1995. “Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting.” British Journal of Political Science25 (4): 453–83.
30.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorgeListhaugOla. 1997. “Individual Perception and Models of Issue Voting.” Journal of Theoretical Politics9 (1): 13–21.
31.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorgeListhaugOla. 1998. “On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can’t Be Helped.” Journal of Politics60 (3): 653–90.
32.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorgeListhaugOla. 2001. “Sophistry versus Science: On Further Efforts to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model.” Journal of Politics63 (2): 482–500.
33.
MerrillSamuelIII. 1994. “A Probabilistic Model for the Spatial Distribution of Party Support in Multiparty Electorates.” Journal of the American Statistical Association89 (428): 1190–97.
34.
MerrillSamuelIII. 1995. “Discriminating between the Directional and Proximity Spatial Models of Electoral Competition.” Electoral Studies14 (3): 273–87.
35.
MerrillSamuelIIIGrofmanBernard. 1997. “Directional and Proximity Models of Voter Utility and Choice: A New Synthesis and an Illustrative Test of Competing Models.” Journal of Theoretical Politics9 (1): 25–48.
36.
MontgomeryJacob M.NyhanBrendan. 2010. “Bayesian Model Averaging: Theoretical Developments and Practical Applications.” Political Analysis18 (2): 245–70.
37.
MorrisIrwin L.RabinowitzGeorge. 1997. “On the Coexistence of Directional and Proximity Voters.” Journal of Theoretical Politics9 (1): 75–88.
38.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
39.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.SchumannDavid. 1983. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research10 (2): 135–46.
40.
PierceRoy. 1997. “Directional versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion.” Journal of Theoretical Politics9 (1): 61–74.
41.
PlattGlennPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 1992. “Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison.” Legislative Studies Quarterly17 (4): 561–72.
42.
RabinowitzGeorgeMacdonaldStuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review83 (1): 93–121.
43.
RabinowitzGeorgeMacdonaldStuart ElaineListhaugOla. 1991. “New Players in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparty Systems.” Comparative Political Studies24 (2): 147–85.
44.
StarzykKatherine B.FabrigarLeandre R.SoryalAshley S.FanningJessie J.2009. “A Painful Reminder: The Role of Level and Salience of Attitude Importance in Cognitive Dissonance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin35 (1): 126–37.
The American National Election Studies. 2012. The ANES 2012 Time Series Study [dataset]. Palo Alto, CA and Ann Arbor, MI: Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers].
47.
TomzMichaelVan HouwelingRobert P.2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review102 (3): 303–18.
48.
WestholmAnders. 1997. “Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review91 (4): 865–83.
49.
ZallerJohn. 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.
