1.
Philip Converse.
"The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. (Seminal piece
on mass belief systems, ideology, and sophistication. An “eat your vegetables”
piece.) Skim.
2. Mark Peffley and Jon Hurwitz. 1985. "A
Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint." American Journal of
Political Science, 29: 871-90.
OR Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley, "How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured?
A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, 81(4)
(December, 1987): 1099-1120.
3.
4. John Zaller and
5. Thomas E. Nelson and Donald Kinder. 1996. “Issue
Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of
Politics 58(4): 1055-78.
Discussion Questions for Mass Belief
Systems and Ideology
Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass
Publics"
1.
Be sure to read
the relevant section of the Kinder chapter (“Attitude and Action in the Realm
of Politics”) assigned the first week for an overview of the literature on this
topic. Note that, generally speaking, beginning with the political tolerance
literature, the authors have been erecting various standards to assess the
competence of the ordinary citizen. Is he or she politically tolerant? Informed?
Are attitudes structured and ideological? Later: do they vote intelligently? In all these areas, we see an amazing amount
of growth in the conceptualization, measurement, design and theories used in
this research.
2.
Converse’s
chapter on mass belief systems is a classic. Virtually every topic covered in
this chapter –on mass belief systems, ideology, levels of conceptualization,
attitude stability, and ideological constraint--became the subject of an intense
debate and research. To begin, Why study the structure of mass belief systems?
What are the normative, analytical, and practical benefits? How does Converse evaluate
the competence of the ordinary citizen? How does he reach this position? Is
this a fair assessment, in your view? Is holding an ideological belief system
either a necessary or sufficient condition for adequately understanding
politics? For advancing one’s interests in the political system? Do you agree
with his position? Why or why not?
3.
How does
Converse define such things as ideology, belief systems, and ideological
constraint? How are these terms, especially ideological or attitude constraint,
measured? What three types of ideological constraint does Converse discuss? How
would you evaluate Converse’s measure of attitude constraint? What about as a
measure of political sophistication? In
what ways is it likely to over- or under-estimate true levels of attitude constraint
among the mass public? Why? How do the other readings bear on this issue?
4.
Others (e.g.,
Jennifer Hochschild) have used depth interviews of a smaller number of respondents
as an alternative way to assess ideological thinking (or mass belief systems) among
ordinary citizens. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of using
in-depth interviews versus Converse’s approach? Must we choose between the two
approaches?
Peffley and
Hurwitz:
1.
What
implications do the studies by Peffley and Hurwitz (or Hurwitz and Peffley) have
for the way we study mass beliefs systems? Specifically, how is their approach
different from that of Converse? How is it similar? Do they focus on vertical
or horizontal constraint, shared structures or idiographic ones, social,
psychological or logical constraint?
2.
Peffley and
Hurwitz assume that issue attitudes are shaped by more general, abstract idea
elements, but what about the reverse? What about external influences of belief
systems?
3.
To what
extent is their study time-bound? Static? How might you update this study? What
are the limitations of this approach to assessing attitude structure? What
problems do you see with this study? How might you apply this study to your
area of interest and to contemporary politics?
Feldman,
“The Role of Core Beliefs and Values”
1.
What exactly are
core beliefs and values? Why are they expected to be central elements in mass
belief systems? In what way do they help to define a political culture?
2.
What core beliefs and values are likely to play an important role in
other policy domains?
3.
What are the likely sources of the core beliefs and values studied by
Feldman? Whose interests do they serve?
4.
Feldman assumes that core beliefs and values influence more specific
attitudes, but what about the reverse?
Zaller and Feldman:
1.
This is a
classic and heavily cited article that seeks to provide a new theory of the
survey response and, in the process, provides something of a compromise between
two views on response stability by Converse (errors are in respondents) and
Achen (errors are in measures). In developing their theory of the survey
response, Zaller and Feldman distinguish between explanations of response
instability by Converse and Achen. What are the differences between these
two explanations and the problems with each? In what ways does the Zaller and
Feldman’s model agree with and yet depart from each of these two explanations?
2.
What are the
three axioms of Zaller and Feldman’s theory of the survey response and where do
they come from?
3.
Overall, how
would you assess the fit of the model (and its 18 deductions!) with the survey
data the authors explore?
4.
What are some of
the broader implications of the theory for the way public opinion should be
studied, for studying response stability, persuasion, and democracy? Are survey
responses “real,” or just epiphenomenal constructions? How malleable or fixed
is public opinion? How does the model help to provide an individual-level
explanation for issue framing by elites? What implications does the model have
for the fluidity of building coalitions of support or opposition among the
public? What implications does the model have for helping to explain media
influence on public opinion?
5.
Pick an issue on
which public opinion has moved or hasn’t moved and do your best to apply this
theory to explain public opinion on this issue.
6.
How might you
critique this theory? Does it have enough axioms? Do the deductions follow
directly from the axioms? Can it be tested rigorously? Can it be
falsified?
7.
Questions to
ponder now and later: The model, which is admittedly sparse, borrows
selectively from theories of information processing, attitude change, framing
and so on. If one advantage of the model is parsimony, what are some of
the costs of relying on this more abbreviated model? What is the range and the
power of the model, in your view? More generally, what are some of the
major problems with the model, as you see them, both theoretically and in its
application?
Nelson and
Kinder:
8.
What are the
theoretical contributions of Nelson and Kinder analysis for thinking about the
structure of mass belief systems, and the origins of public opinion? How does
it deviate from or reinforce Converse’s conclusions? How does it improve upon
other studies of mass belief systems we read this week?
9.
To what extent
does the authors’ empirical analysis deliver on the theoretical promise of the
article? Why or why not? What problems do you see with this article?
10. How might you apply this and other studies read this
week to your area of interest and to contemporary politics?