1 / 18

Two Views of Public Attitudes and Sophistication

Two Views of Public Attitudes and Sophistication. I. Elite Driven. Two (or Multi) – Tiered Electorate. Sophistication Information Flow Political Influentials v . Mass Elite to Mass. McClosky. Influentials are More Ideological than Public

eryk
Download Presentation

Two Views of Public Attitudes and Sophistication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Two Views of Public Attitudes and Sophistication

  2. I. Elite Driven

  3. Two (or Multi) – Tiered Electorate • Sophistication • Information Flow • Political Influentialsv. Mass • Elite to Mass

  4. McClosky • Influentials are More Ideological than Public • Public expresses greater degrees of consensus and support for democratic ideology • Support for democratic values is stronger among influentials, but not a consensus • American democracy flourishes even though the public does not fully understand or embrace “democratic values”

  5. Converse • Levels of Conceptualization All Voters Ideologues 2.5 3.5 Near-Ideologues 9 12 Group Interest 42 45 Nature of the Times 24 22 No Issue Content 22.5 17.5

  6. Understanding (Recognition of concepts Cons and Lib) I II III IV V Ideologues 51% 43 2 2 2 Near-Ideologues 29 46 10 5 10 Group Interest 13 42 14 6 25 Nature of the Times 16 40 7 7 30 No Issue Content 10 22 7 12 49

  7. Constraint(Correlation Across Issues) Sample of Congressional Candidates Domestic Foreign (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Employ (1) .62 .59 .35 .26 .06 .17 Education (2) .61 .53 .50 .06 .35 Housing (3) .47 .41 -.03 .30 FEPC (4) .47 .11 .23 Econ Aid (5) .19 .59 Military Aid (6) .32 Isolation (7)

  8. Constraint Sample of Population Domestic Foreign (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Employ (1) .45 .08 .34 -.04 .10 -.22 Education (2) .12 .29 .06 .14 -.17 Housing (3) .08 -.06 .02 .07 FEPC (4) .27 .13 .02 Econ Aid (5) .16 .33 Military Aid (6) .21 Isolation (7)

  9. Consistency (Stability) Correlations Over Time (1958 to 1960) Party Identification: .72 School Desegregation: .47 FEPC: .42 Guaranteed Employment: .40 Isolationism: .38 Aid to Education: .35 Foreign Ec Aid: .33 Foreign Mil Aid: .31 Federal Housing: .29

  10. II. Mass Origins (Rationalists)

  11. Key • Public is attentive • Reacts to public debate among electorate • Opinions reflect their assessment and judgment of the choices offered them.

  12. Ansolabehere, Rodden, Snyder • Re-examine Converse • Problem of Measurement Error. Bad or Vague Questions. • Scales • Average a lot of questions of a similar type. • Results. Better measures (more stable, more constraint). • Voting Equation • Issues Matter • Two Dimensional Model (what does that imply about constraint?)

  13. METHODOLOGIES

  14. Survey Design • Questions • What does each question measure? What is the variable or concept being measured? • How does the question map into the variable? Are all possible values covered? • There is no single “silver bullet” question for most variables (even things like income). • Questionnaires • Multiple Measures • Placement and Order. A survey is like a conversation.

  15. Basic Statistics • Proportions and Means (and Standard Deviations) • Correlations • Scales

  16. Models

  17. Valence Issues • Valence Defined • Issue Ownership • Wedge Issues • D+I-R, R+I-D

  18. Positional Issues • Spatial Positions of Parties and Candidates • Salience of Issues

More Related