Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I even say who wrote them. If you have more recent summaries to add to this collection, send them my way I guess. Sorry for the ads; they cover the costs of keeping this online.
Miller, Krosnick, and Fabrigar. 2005. The origins of policy issue salience.
Studies cite the concept of 'salience' frequently, but they have diverse concepts in mind. Miller et al see two concepts: sociotropic salience (e.g. "What is the most important issue facing our country?") and personal salience (e.g. "Which issue is most important to you?"). They argue that these concepts are both conceptually and empirically distinct, and that personal salience plays a much greater role than sociotropic salience in predicting behavior--which is ironic, since politicians appear to respond to sociotropically salient concerns.
The review draws on data from eight separate studies. See the text for descriptions.
1. Are sociotropic and personal salience empirically distinct?
2. Which has stronger effects on expressed preferences and political activism?
3. Which has stronger effects on electoral choices between candidates?
4. Are the stronger effects of personal salience caused by its ability to cause cognitive and emotional engagement on an issue?
5. Is it this increased engagement (H4) that causes the effects in H3 (as an intervening variable)?
6. Does sociotropic salience cause personal salience, making its (sociotropic's) empirical coefficients appear weaker than they really are?
My main concern was with possible question-order effects on studies 1 and 2 creating a false correlation between personal and sociotropic salience.
Prediction # 3 assumes that we think our personal problems are the government's fault (just like all 'pocketbook voting' arguments). But unless we have reason to make this link, why should we vote our personal issues? Perhaps, for this reason, we should expect an interaction between personal and sociotropic salience: Our votes reflect things we care about personally only when we think they are threatened nationally. The authors acknowledge this point in a very unsatisfactory way on p 23.
Research by the same authors
Research on similar subjects