Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:25:22.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1985

Henry E. Brady  and
Paul M. Sniderman
Henry E. Brady
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Paul M. Sniderman
Affiliation:
Stanford University and Survey Research Center University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article shows that citizens can estimate what politically strategic groups—liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and blacks and whites—stand for on major issues. These attitude attributions follow from a simple calculus, a likability heuristic. This heuristic is rooted in people's likes and dislikes of political groups. Thanks to this affective calculus, many in the mass public are able to estimate who stands for what politically, notwithstanding shortfalls in information and information processing.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 1061 - 1078
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (Eds.). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J. H., & McKelvey, R. D. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 111–130.10.2307/1956957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. R., & McPhee, W. N. Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C. Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1973.Google Scholar
Brent, E., & Granberg, D. Subjective agreement with the presidential candidates of 1976 and 1980. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 393–403.10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. The American voter. New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
Chubb, J. E., Hagen, M. G., & Sniderman, P. M. A two-dimensional theory of ideology. Working Paper on Political Science. No. P-84-2. Stanford, Calif.: The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1984.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.). Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In Tufte, E. R. (Ed.). The quantitative analysis of social problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. Public opinion and voting behavior. In Greenstein, F. & Polsby, N. (Eds.). Handbook of political science (vol. 4). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. A theory of data. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J., & Ordeshook, P. C. An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 1970, 64, 426–448.10.2307/1953842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. J. The spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Granberg, D., & Brent, E. Dove-hawk placements in the 1968 election: Application of social judgment and balance theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 687–695.10.1037/h0036631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberg, D., Brent, E., & King, M. Membership group, reference group, and the attribution of attitudes to groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 40, 833–842.10.1037/0022-3514.40.5.833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heider, F. The psychology of Interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.10.1037/10628-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intriligator, M. D. Mathematical optimization and economic theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.Google Scholar
Kelejian, H. H., & Oates, W. E. Introduction to econometrics. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. Political person perception: The asymmetrical influence of sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 859–871.10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, T. E., & Miller, W. E. Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 1979, 73, 751–771.10.2307/1955402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 42–55.10.1037/h0048153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, B. I. Elections and social choice: The state of the evidence. American Journal of Political Science, 1977, 21, 639–668.10.2307/2110585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, B. I. Choices and echoes in presidential elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Page, B. I., & Jones, C. C. Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties, and the vote. American Political Science Review, 1979, 73, 1071–1089.10.2307/1953990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R. Linear statistical inference and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1973.10.1002/9780470316436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. J., & Abelson, R. P. An analysis of cognitive balancing. In Rosenberg, M. J., Hovland, C. I., McGuire, W. J., Abelson, R. P., & Brehm, J. W. (Eds.). Attitude organization and change. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, G., & House, P. The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 279–301.10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. Maximum principles in analytical economics. American Economic Review, 1972, 62, 249–262.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Kuklinski, J. H. Policy reasoning in political issues: The problem of racial equality. American Journal of Political Science, 1984, 28, 75–94.10.2307/2110788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. Public opinion and political ideology. In Hermann, M. (Ed.). Handbook of political psychology (vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, in press.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.