The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Issue Salience and Party Choice
Abstract
A number of leading studies of voting behavior in recent years have concluded that specific issues are not a salient element in the electoral decision. These studies have indicated not only that voters are unfamiliar with most issues, but also that the electorate is generally unable to detect differences between Republican and Democratic positions on issues. Using the same Survey Research Center interviews upon which these previous findings were based, this article modifies these previous evaluations. This study concentrates on data from the 1964 election —a campaign that was notable not for the issues it raised, but rather for the public's strong reactions to the candidates. The findings in this article show that, even in 1964, most people were concerned with a number of specific issues and that these issue concerns had a very measurable effect on voting choice. Furthermore, large proportions of people were able accurately to perceive the differences between the parties on those issues that were salient to them. The major reason these findings are so different from previous results is that new measures and a different approach were used—particularly open-ended interview material that for the first time allowed the researcher to discover the issues that were salient to the voter.
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
Elder, J. W., Geertz, C., & Rosenhack, K. P. S. (1964) · Cited by 3,878
The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960
Key, V. O. (1966) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674497764 · Cited by 1,680
Public Opinion and American Democracy.
Scoble, H. M., & Key, V. O. (1962) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2108638 · Cited by 961
Elections and the Political Order
Poggi, G., Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1967) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/588599 · Cited by 698
Some Dynamic Elements of Contests for the Presidency
Stokes, D. E. (1966) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1953803 · Cited by 312
Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue
Converse, P. E. (1963) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e685262012-124 · Cited by 255
Public Opinion and American Democracy
Shapiro, R. Y. (2011) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfr053 · Cited by 248
Party Government and the Saliency of Congress
Stokes, D. E., & Miller, W. E. (1962) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/267126 · Cited by 248
Hershey, M. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315544427 · Cited by 153
Cited by
Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888 · Cited by 7,611
On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’
Wlezien, C. (2005) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2005.01.009 · Cited by 649
Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00196.x · Cited by 633
Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote
Page, B. I., & Jones, C. C. (1979) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1953990 · Cited by 554
The Psychology of Group Conflict and the Dynamics of Oppression: A Social Dominance Perspective
Sidanius, J. (1993) · Explorations in Political Psychology · doi:10.1215/9780822396697-009 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Authors
- RePass, D. E.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1929-06
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 389-400
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2034751544
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 0.00
- 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: Issue Salience and Party Choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1954456
- The paper
- RePass, D. E. (1929). Issue Salience and Party Choice. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954456
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.