Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:28:45.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Context and Attitude Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1987

Michael MacKuen  and
Courtney Brown
Michael MacKuen
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, St. Louis
Courtney Brown
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political context has an important impact on individual attitude change. This is an analysis of the dynamic effects of contextual variables. Drawing on data taken from the American National Election Study (ANES) panel study, we demonstrate that the environment shapes the way the citizen views politics. While varying in degree, the results hold for a broad (county-level) and a narrow (residential neighborhood-level) definition of the relevant context. The patterns involved suggest that citizens' evaluations of candidates and parties are most directly influenced by what their neighbors are saying at the moment, that is to say, the content of current discussion. In contrast, citizens' self-identification evinces sensitivity to the more stable partisan character of the environment. The results indicate that the impact of social influence is crucially dependent on the nature of contemporary political debate and that the social setting serves as an intervening mechanism in the broader communication system and not merely as an exogenous source for political information.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 471 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1987

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

Berelson, Benard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bodman, A. R. 1983. The Neighborhood Effect: A Test of the Butler-Stokes Model. British Journal of Political Science 13:243–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Thad A. 1981. On Contextual Change and Partisan Attitudes. British Journal of Political Science 11:427–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Thad A. 1987. Migration and Politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald. 1969. Political Change in Britain. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. Robert. 1983a. The Social Context of Political Change: Durability, Volatility, and Social Influence. American Political Science Review 77:929–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. Robert. 1983b. Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints upon Friendship Choice. American Journal of Sociology 89:651–69.10.1086/227908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R. Robert, and Sprague, John. 1986. Social Contexts, Political Environments, and the Dynamics of Voter Preferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Katz, Elihu, and Lazarsfeld, Paul F.. 1955. Personal Influence. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Langton, Kenneth P., and Rapoport, Ronald. 1975. Social Structure, Social Context, and Partisan Mobilization: Urban Workers in Chile. Comparative Political Studies 8:318–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, William N. 1963. A Theory of Informal Social Influence. In Formal Theories of Mass Behavior, ed. Phee, William N.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
McPhee, William N., and Smith, Robert B.. 1962. A Model for Analyzing Voting Systems. In Public Opinion and Congressional Elections, ed. McPhee, William N. and Glaser, William A.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. 1956. One-party Politics and the Voter. American Political Science Review 50:707–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, William L. 1977. Electoral Dynamics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prysby, Charles L. 1976. Community Partisanship and Individual Voting Behavior: Methodological Problems of Contextual Analysis. Political Methodology 3:183–89.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1966. Political Attitudes and the Local Community. American Political Science Review 60:640–54.10.2307/1952976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, John P. 1976. Interpersonal Influence in Election Campaigns: Two Step-Flow Hypotheses. Public Opinion Quarterly 40:304–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, John. 1982. Is There a Micro Theory Consistent with Contextual Analysis? In Strategies of Political Inquiry, ed. Ostrom, Elinor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tingsten, Herbert. 1937. Political Behaviour. London: King.Google Scholar
Weatherford, M. Stephen. 1982. Interpersonal Networks and Political Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 26:117–43.10.2307/2110843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.