IDEOLOGICAL THINKING AMONG MASS PUBLICS AND POLITICAL ELITES

Although the characterization of the general public's level of attitudinal constraint and continuity as modest has rested in part on assumed contrasts with political elites, there are scarcely any systematic, parallel studies of the two populations. This article utilizes comparable measures from cross-sectional and panel surveys included in the National Election Studies and in the National Convention Delegate Studies. Overall, political party elites have a vastly more constrained and stable set of polit- ical preferences-in terms of the traditional liberal-conservative dimension-than does the mass public, a conclusion that applies whether the test is a demanding one based on opinions about policy issues or a less stringent one based on appraisals of socio- political groups and prominent political actors. Stratifying the mass public according to level of political activity generates clear, steplike differences in constraint and continuity, but ideological consistency among party elites substantially exceeds that of even the most active stratum of the mass public. These results demon- strate that, however flawed the standard survey instrument may be as a means of ascertaining ideological thinking, it performs exceedingly well in making the kind of distinctions to be expected on a priori grounds. The contrasts between the two populations have strong implications for two-way flows of communication.

[1]  Eric R. A. N. Smith The Unchanging American Voter , 1989 .

[2]  J. Krosnick Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys , 1991 .

[3]  D. Green On the Dimensionality of Public Sentiment toward Partisan and Ideological Groups , 1988 .

[4]  B. Woods,et al.  Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems: Analysis of Coalition Stability and Defection over Time , 1991 .

[5]  M. Jennings,et al.  Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Party Supporters , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[6]  P. Converse,et al.  Political Representation in France , 1986 .

[7]  J. Hochschild What's Fair: American Beliefs about Distributive Justice , 1981 .

[8]  James A. Stimson Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election , 1975 .

[9]  Henry E. Brady,et al.  Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[10]  Christopher H. Achen Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response , 1975, American Political Science Review.

[11]  A. Tesser,et al.  Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. , 1986 .

[12]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?” , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[13]  K. Knight Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter , 1985, The Journal of Politics.

[14]  Philip E. Converse,et al.  Plus ça change…: The New CPS Election Study Panel , 1979, American Political Science Review.

[15]  M. Peffley,et al.  How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[16]  Charles M. Judd,et al.  Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: Effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity. , 1984 .

[17]  A. Barton,et al.  Measuring Belief System Structure , 1977 .

[18]  R. Putnam,et al.  Attitude Stability among Italian Elites , 1979 .

[19]  Robert C. Luskin Measuring Political Sophistication , 1987 .

[20]  Norman R. Luttbeg Without Consent: Mass-Elite Linkages in Presidential Politics. By Warren E. Miller. (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1988. Pp. 182. $20.00.) , 1990 .

[21]  J. Kirkpatrick The new Presidential elite , 1975 .