Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

The R2=.93: Where Then Do They Differ? Comparing Liberal and Conservative Interest Group Ratings

Thomas L. Brunell, William Koetzle, John Dinardo, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld
Legislative Studies Quarterly
Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 87-101
Published by: Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/440301
Page Count: 15
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The R2=.93: Where Then Do They Differ? Comparing Liberal and Conservative Interest Group Ratings
Preview not available

Abstract

Interest group ratings have long been used by social scientists to distinguish between liberal and conservative members of Congress. It is also well known that ratings by different groups are highly correlated with one another. Here, rather than focusing on the similarities between such measures, we focus on the differences between them. Although the relationship between measures is nearly linear, we find systematic robust differences between Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and American Conservative Union (ACU) scores. Using a variety of techniques, we show that interest groups are most interested in distinguishing among their ideological friends and tend to group their ideological enemies near the bottom of the scale. Because of this, using any single interest group score to explain political phenomena (i.e., party loyalty) is likely to produce an inconsistent estimate of the impact of ideology on such phenomena. Finally, we propose and test a method that corrects for this bias.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
87
    87
  • Thumbnail: Page 
88
    88
  • Thumbnail: Page 
89
    89
  • Thumbnail: Page 
90
    90
  • Thumbnail: Page 
91
    91
  • Thumbnail: Page 
92
    92
  • Thumbnail: Page 
93
    93
  • Thumbnail: Page 
94
    94
  • Thumbnail: Page 
95
    95
  • Thumbnail: Page 
96
    96
  • Thumbnail: Page 
97
    97
  • Thumbnail: Page 
98
    98
  • Thumbnail: Page 
99
    99
  • Thumbnail: Page 
100
    100
  • Thumbnail: Page 
101
    101