The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables
Abstract
A central question in the study of democratic polities is the extent to which elite opinion about policy shapes public opinion. Estimating the impact of elites on mass opinion is difficult because of endogeneity, omitted variables, and measurement error. This article proposes an identification strategy for estimating the causal effect of elite messages on public support for European integration employing changes in political institutions as instrumental variables. We find that more negative elite messages about European integration do indeed decrease public support for Europe. Our analysis suggests that OLS estimates are biased, underestimating the magnitude of the effect of elite messages by 50%. We also find no evidence that this effect varies for more politically aware individuals, and our estimates are inconsistent with a mainstreaming effect in which political awareness increases support for Europe in those settings in which elites have a favorable consensus on the benefits of integration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
Kenski, H. C., & Zaller, J. R. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074664 · Cited by 5,169
(1987) · Cited by 2,656
Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems
Cox, G. W. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174954 · Cited by 2,281
Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation
King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000235 · Cited by 1,834
Self-citationThe democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know?
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-1262 · Cited by 1,827
The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting
DellaVigna, S., & Kaplan, E. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187 · Cited by 1,602
Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998
Budge, I., Klingemann, H., Volkens, A., Bara, J. L., & Tanenbaum, E. (2001) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,508
Modeling Multilevel Data Structures
Steenbergen, M. R., & Jones, B. S. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088424 · Cited by 1,503
Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945—1998
Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Tanenbaum, E., Fording, R. C., Hearl, D. J., Kim, H. M., Mcdonald, M. D., & Mendes, S. M. (2001) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199244003.001.0001 · Cited by 1,260
Cited by
How Public Opinion Information Changes Politicians’ Opinions and Behavior
Sevenans, J. (2021) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09715-9 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Gabel, M., & Scheve, K.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1013-1028
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2080289065
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 83.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00294.x
- The paper
- Gabel, M., & Scheve, K. (2007). Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00294.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
