Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Political Ideology Scaling× | Political Sophistication Measurement× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Politische Psychologie | Politische Psychologie |
| Familie≠ | Latent structure | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 1985 | 1987 |
| Urheber≠ | Keith Poole & Howard Rosenthal | Robert C. Luskin & John Zaller |
| Typ≠ | Latent ideal-point model | Composite cognitive index |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357-384. DOI ↗ | Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521407861 |
| Aliasnamen≠ | NOMINATE, Ideal Point Estimation, IRT Ideology Scaling, Spatial Voting Scaling | Political Awareness Index, Political Expertise Measure, Cognitive Sophistication Index |
| Verwandt | 4 | 4 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | Political ideology scaling estimates actors' positions on one or more latent ideological dimensions from their observed choices, most often legislators' roll-call votes, but also survey responses and donations. The dominant methods are Poole and Rosenthal's NOMINATE (1985) and the Bayesian item-response-theory (IRT) approach of Clinton, Jackman and Rivers (2004), which place legislators and the proposals they vote on in a common spatial map. | Political sophistication measurement assesses the size, range, and organization of an individual's political belief system, the degree to which a person's political cognitions are numerous, wide-ranging, and well integrated. Luskin (1987) developed rigorous operationalizations, and Zaller (1992) showed that political awareness, his preferred sophistication indicator, governs how citizens receive and accept political messages. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|