Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:45:33.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideological Consistency as a Collective Phenomenon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Scott L. Feld  and
Bernard Grofman
Scott L. Feld
Affiliation:
State University of New York Stony Brook
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers ordinarily consider ideological consistency to be a characteristic of individuals; groups are considered to be ideological only if they are composed of ideologically oriented individuals. We show how a group as a whole can be characterized as exhibiting an ideological basis for its preferences even though many, or even most, of its members have preferences that are inconsistent with the supposed unidimensional ideological continuum. As an illustration, we show that the United States electorate of 1980 had collective preferences among the candidates Kennedy, Carter, Ford, and Reagan as if these preferences reflected an underlying left-right dimension among these candidates, despite the fact that a high proportion of individual voters had preferences among these candidates that did not fit the left-right dimension. In general, we show reasons why collectivities are likely to be more ideologically consistent than are the individuals composing them.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 773 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988 

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

Arrow, Kenneth. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values, 2d ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1967. The Structure of Public Opinion on Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly 31:51–60.Google Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela, and Feldman, Stanley. 1984. How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model. American Journal of Political Science 28:95–126.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Public. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1970. Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue. In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, Edward. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Coombs, Clyde. 1960. A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., and Grofman, Bernard. 1986a. On the Possibility of Faithful Representation. American Political Science Review 80:863–79.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., and Grofman, Bernard. 1986b. Partial Single-peakedness: An Extension and Clarification. Public Choice 51:71–80.Google Scholar
Feld, Scott L., and Grossman, Joel. 1984. Elections and Decisions: Negotiations by School Budget Referenda. Social Forces 63:363–76.Google Scholar
Fleishman, John A. 1986. Trend in Self-identified Ideology from 1972 to 1982: No Support for the Salience Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 517–40.Google Scholar
Hamill, Ruth, and Lodge, Milton. 1986. Cognitive Consequences of Political Sophistication. In Political Cognition, ed. Lau, Richard R. and Sears, David O.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harmon, Harry H. 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1985. Aggregate Stability and Individual-Level Flux in Mass Belief Systems: The Level of Analysis Paradox. American Political Science Review 79:97–116.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard. 1969. Majority Decision Making with Partial Unidimensionality. American Political Science Review 63:489–97.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard. 1969. Majority Decision Making 1984. Controversies in Voting Behavior. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard, and Wright, John R.. 1986. Voting Cycles and the Structure of Individual Preferences. Presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles. 1976. Axiomatic Social Choice Theory. American Journal of Political Science 20:511–96.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1966. A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions. Econometrica 34:75–79.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert. 1972. Scaling Models for Legislative Roll-Call Analysis. American Political Science Review 66:1306–15.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert. 1974. Dimensionland: Excursion into Space. American Political Science Review 68:743–76.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert, and Grofman, Bernard. 1981. Candidate Evaluations and Turnout. American Politics Quarterly 9:197–215.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Rev. ed. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar