Você está na página 1de 45

.....................

THINKING ABOUT POLITICS

Andre Modigliani and William A Gamson


University of Michigan
June, 1976

CRSO Working Paper

/I

146

Copies available through:


Center for Research on
Social Organization
University of Michigan
330 Packard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

THINKING ABOUT POLITICS

Andre Modiglbani and William A. Gmson1

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor
June, 1976

orr I&

ih.eUi=t%w*
A

z+&Ly!bgOR

&dig)

$!

vb~8
mbU% ~'b$m%%Phl

fern: esglegktim googa* The ttnrae


4&er?a %o e a - a
&tfb-wkas

att

&a dbws*

tea.

rn coaaBgt

6f f3uZEqpb

~~~~ b0simti,w 02 * *6r%tfaB1

Thinking About P o l i t i c s
!
!

Shortly a f t e r t h e colla'pse of t h e Army of South V i e t n a m in April, 1975,


an Associated Press r e p o r t e r d i d a s e r i e s of interviews with V i e t n a m veterans

in a small midwestern town.

One of t h e intervlewees had been permanently

crippled from a mortar round near Da W-.

The r e p o r t of t h e interview

quotes him as follows:


"Lately t h e r e have been a l o t of people saying we should go back over
there.

W e l l , by God, i f they want t o go back over there, give 'em a r i f l e

and send 'em back over.


old t o f i g h t .

The only ones I've heard who want t o go a r e too

E i t h e r t h a t o r they don't have any sons or'grandsons.

In

seven years there, we were supposed t o be t r a i n i n g them and we did most of


t h e f i g h t i n g and i t didn't help.

It didn't do any good so i f ve go brick-

over again and t r y t o r e t r a i n them and t r y t o help them, f still don't think
it's going t o make any difference.
1 l o s t a l o t of f r i e n d s ,

(pause)

We l o s t a l o t of guys over there.

I think i t ' s a waste.

is t o blame f o r t h e l o s t use of h i s legs.)

(The r e p o r t e r asks him who

I j u s t don't know.

I don't

think w e should have been over t h e r e i n t h e f i r s t place, but y e t I was sent


wer t h e r e t o do a job and I went and I came back wounded and hurt....

'

No,

I guess I can't bLame anybody."2

W e a r e concerned in t h i s paper with how people respond t o public objects.


Among t h e o b j e c t s t h a t are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o us are those convent i o n a l l y labeled."political."
t u t i o n s , and events.

By o b j e c t s , we mean people, p o l i c i e s , i n s t i -

By public, we mean those o b j e c t s encountered, d i r e c t l y

o r i n d i r e c t l y , through a public medium such a s newspapers or: television.

i
L-

-2-

(a,

The f a c t t h a t t h e r e 'is an accounehg of t h e s e o b j e c t s i n t h e mass media makes


them public m e n i f t h e final channel of conrmunications t o sme i n d i v i d u a l s

!-

There a r e d i s t i n c t i v e mcdes o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways of thinking about


p u b l i c o'ojecta.

Such modes of thinking are similar t o what Converse (1964)

W
e p r e f e r t h e i d e a of mode of thinking,

r e f e r s t o as "belief

because we wish t o emphasize an a c t i v e mind, one which is in t h e process of


thinking about p u b l i c objects.
b l a c k box

We are concerned with t h e operation of t h e

-- t h e box t h a t connects a p o l i t i c a l

o r behavioral response.

stimulus with some a t t i t u d i n a l

We a r e n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h reducing t h e complex body

of thought i n t h e mind of t h e Vietnam v e t e r a n quoted above t o some simple


valence code such as pro o r a n t i , hawk o r dove.

W
e seek a way of character-

izing t h e mode of thought t h a t he employes in an e f f o r t t o capture something


more of t h e r i c h n e s s and complexity contained in h i s answers.

W e w i l l argue here t h a t t h e r e a r e a l i m i t e d number of general modes of

thinldng about p o l i t i c s .

W e wild single out t h r e e but withaut claiming, a t

this point, that they a r e n e c e s s a r i l y exhaustfve.


modes; o t h e r s may use only one o r two.

Some of us use a l l t h r e e

N o mode is b e t t e r than any other:

the d i s t i n c t i o n s we w i l l b e making among t h e modes a r e n o t lrrvidious ones.

W
e do n o t s e e them a s h i e r a r c h i c a l

o r as s t a g e s of development, and warn t h e

reader a g a i n s t t r e a t i n g our anodes a s "higherf' of "lowerf' ways of thinking.

We suspect that most people rely on a predominant mode.

However, i t is n o t

our i n t e n t i o n o r d e s i r e t o c l a s s i f y i n d i v i d u a l s through our d i s t i n c t i o n s but


t o understand d i f f e r e n t ways of thinking about p o l i t i c s .

The Nature of Modes of Thinking about Public Objects


In d e s c r i b i n g t h e t h r e e modes, w e o p e r a t e with a general model of how
people t h i n k about p u b l i c o b j e c t s .

It will be necessary t o present t h i s model

i-

b e f o r e we can make t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s among modes i n which w e a r e i n t e r e s t e d .

The X o c i e l .

A continual stream of p u b l i c o b j e c t s pass before us.

We

s e l e c t from t h i s strean c e r t a i n ones t o a t t e n d to; t h e s e e n t e r our domain of

W
e are,able t o asJimilate only certain p a r t s of t h i s domain because

relevance.

of t h e n a t u r e of our filing systeu; m e t h i n g s we a r e unable t o f i l e o r


F i n a l l y we develop an o r i e n t a t i o n toward t h e object; w e a p p l y t o

assfmilate.

it a grananar of b e l i e f s .

I f t h h process is completed, then t h e p u b l i c o b j e c t

is imbued with meaning and valence and w e can say t h a t w e have an a t t i t u d e


T h i s model is described in more d e t a i l below and i s smmarized in

toward it.
Chart 1.

Chart 1 &out
----Step One:

Attention.

t o u s and erne are not.

Here
I
-

As o b j e c t s p a s s b e f o r e us, some a r e of i n t e r e s t

O f course, t h i s is a manipulated process afnce it is

d i f f i c u l t t o avoid attending t o c e r t a i n o b j e c t s whether we a r e i n t e r e s t e d in

them o r not.

It i s n o t the social process by which c e r t a i n things a r e c a l l e d

t o on='s attent3.m that f s of concern here but, rather, the social psychol o g i c a l p r o w b y which a person focuses attention on those thiogs t h a t he
c a r e s about.

We assume t h a t everybody has a domah of relevance determined by t h e i r


personal goals o r concerns.

-When they anploy a p a r t i c u l a r mode of thinking

about paPSlic o b j e c t s , they are guided by a general question o r inclusion r u l e .

Each of t h e t h r e e mode5 has a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n c l u s i o n rule t o answer t h e


question:

Is t h i s something that concerns me?

This r u l e s e l e c t s what i s

included i n t h e domain.

W
e can expect much v a r i a t i o n i n t h e content of what i s included among

indfviduals and t h i s v a r i a t i o n w i l l e x i s t within modes a s w e l l as among them.

Some people a r e concerned quite a b i t ' a b o u t a P r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n or peace


,

in t h e Kiddle East and incrude a great many p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s i n t h e i r domain


of relevance.

Others, f o r whatever reasons, don't have manys p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s

i n t h e i r donain.

O m primary concerri h e r e is not with individual v a r i a t i o n s

b u t with v a r i a t i o n s among modes,

is:

The f i r s t question we ask f o r a given mode

What is the inclueion rule for its domein of relevaace?.

Step Two:

Asshilation.

Once something is i n our domain of relevance,

we a s s i m i l a t e i t by placing i t i n one o r more categories of our f i l i n g system.'

This concept is similar t o what Rosenberg and Abelson ( f n Hovland and Rosenberg,
1960) c a l l "cognitive Pile,"
f i l e d o b j e c t s i t is l i k e .

W e l o c a t e t h e o b j e c t by deciding w h a t previously

We rnay l o c a t e i t i n several d i f f e r e n t categories

simultaneously.
Each mode has a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b a s i s of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r its f i l i n g
system.

The categories of the ' f i l i n g systan a r e k.@ye.dt o t h i s b a s i s .

Again

we can expect much v a r i a t h s n i n the c a t e g o r i e s that individuals use, even


among those employing the same mode.

Some s e c t i o n s of an individual's f i l e

may be t i g h t l y packed with entries while o t h e r sections are nearly empty;


p a r t s of one's f i l i n g system w i l l b e f i n e l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d while other p a r t s

will be q u f t e gxoss.

No doubt some indfviduals have mostly empty drawers

while o t h e r s have f i l e s as s t u f f e d as the FBI's.

Our primary concern is not

with individual variations buo: w i t h v a r i a t i o n s anong mdes.


t i o n we aek f o r a given node is:

The second ques-

What attributes are used t o d i s t i n g u i s h

among and t o categorize public objects? What i s the b a s i s of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ?


Step Three:

Orientation.

Once an object i s f i l e d , w e apply t o i t a

set of b e l i e f s relating t h e relevant f i l e categories t o other idea-elements.


These b e l i e f s may be both nortlative and empirical.
beliefs a

We c a l l t h e set of such

Orientation is a process of applying a grarmnar of b e l i e f s

t o an object t h a t has been assimilated i n t o categories i n a f i l i n g system.

We assume t h a t a c h individual has fionie gramtar of b e l i e f s .

One i s a b l e

t o deal with sn object because it is i i k e other things that one hae thought

about in the past.

The rules o r b e l i e f s t h a t govern one's o r l e n t a t i o n t o

these already considered objects are a p p l i e d t o the new object.


Some

Each individualesgrammar of beliefs kis a p a r t i c u l a r content.

individuals have a relakively po.c?erful grammar that enables them t o draw a


wide array of implications

-- in e f f e c t ,

they are able t o brtng t o bear a r i c h

armature derived from much p a s t reading, conversation, and thought.

Others

have r e l a t i v e l y Pew idea-elaents connected with met of t h e i r categories.

Again, our concern i s not with i n d i v i d u a l differencee but with t h e characteri s t i c graPmrara of each of the three modes.

given mode is:

The t h i r d q u e s t 2 o n we a s k f o r a

What is the s t r u c t u r e of i t s grammar of beliefs?

A mode, then, involvea three s t r u c t u r a l elements: a domain of relevance,


a f i l i n g system, and a grammar of b e l i e f s .
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c general structure.

These elementa combine t o form a

Since a m d e exists 5x1 a single mind, we

assume: t h a t the t h r e e s t r a c t u r a l elements a r t i c u l a t e w i t h each other t o pro-

vide an integrated and coherent w3y o f thlnkPng about public objects.

We do

not expect t h e different: parts of a mode to be independent but t o be functionally interrelated.

Before we a t t e a p t t o give concrete fors t o t e d s highly abotract and


I

general model, w e would like t o n o t e an important assumption here.

1 indicates, d

y if

all of

A s Chart

the above s t e p s are completed i s it. meaningful.

t o t a l k about someone as having a full-fledged a t t i t u d e toward an object.

The hrocess of producing an a t - t i t u d e may abort a t any of t h r e e points.


a perston m y be isrpttentive.

First,

Second, he may not b e able t o assimilate t h e

obfect because his filing e-ysttsa l a c b t h e appropriate categories o r is insuff i c i a t l y differentiated.

Third, when he a p p l i e s h i s gramtar of b e l i e f s

for orientation, i t m y contain many contradictions and

knconsistencies,

r e ~ d fn
t confasfern and dfsotientation.
A noa-attitude does not mean that a person w i l l produce no response,

If -

asked q question about t h e obfect by a survey interviewer, a person will give


some appropriate answer but i t w i l l h a v e l i t t l e or nothing t o do with t h e

object in queetion.

Gcmvezse (1970) suggests that many survey qdestions e l f c i t

such non-attitudes from respondents who "with no real a t t i t u d e s on the matter


i n question...Hfeelt]

f o r sqme reason,..oblfged

.... When a t t i t u d e s are asked for in such a


,

t o t r y a response t o the it-,

[eufvey research) s e t t h g , people

are r e m c ~ h b l yo b l i p h g . "
Types of k d e a .
To prevent the discussion 02 t h e modes fron becoming excessively abotract,
ake w911

employ a device.

We will suppose soae fildividuals,each of whom relies

excful*iivdy on a single mode i n responding t o two concrete issues:

the end

of t h e war in Vietnam and court crdesed bussing t o achieve r a c i a l integrat i o n of schools.

This concretiefng device rune the danger t h a t the reader

w i l l mistakenly think of +,hie typology as a way of distinguishing individuals

r a t h e r than modes of thinking, but ft aimplif Pes t h e presentation considerably.


We w i l l proceed by sketching each m d e as a whole before discussing its

parts more systematicaL2y.

The person relying on Mode A treats p o l i t i c s a s

an e x t e n ~ l o nof interpereonal experience.

H e has learned c e r t a i n r u l e s of

thuinb f o r dealing d t h t h e s o c i a l world he encounters i n h i s immediate, weryday life and he t r e a t s public objects by extending these r u l e s t o those
o b j e c t s t h a t seem t o a f f e c t him in concrete ways.

Sometimes he has d i f f i c u l t y

finding applicable rules a n d c a n ' t e a s i l y r m d e r such o b j e c t s meaningful.


Soreio

of h i s a t t i t u d e s m y be mediated by surrogates:

f r i e n d s whose judgmat

he r e s p e c t s or public figures who sees t o r e f l e c t h i s code of personal conduct.

Tho person relying on W e E organizes h i s . p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s around a


set of s a l i e n t group fddentfficatiom.

He reco@fzes t h a t p o l i t i c a l events

a f f e c t d i f f e r e n t groups ir: d i f f e r e a r ways,

"the)"'

o r a s e r i e e of such.

H i s world contains a 'be" and

Like our f i r s t person, he may a l e o have d i f f i c u l t y

deternrlning hew eone public events w i l l a f f e c t h i s concerns.

m y be mediated by surrogates:

H i s attitudes

f r i e n d s eho s h a r e h i s s o l i d a r i t i e s o r public

f i g u r e s who seem t o speak for groups with whom he i d e n t i f i e s .


The person r e l y i n g on Mode C views public o b j e c t s i n terms of t h e i r con.sequences for glven states of c o l l e c t i v i t i e s i n which she p a r t i c i p a t e s .

These system states a r e s t a t e s of t h e s o c i a l worlci t h a t she .would like t o s e e


achieved or nnaiatained.

They may range from scch a b s t r a c t stares a s l i b e r t y

and e q u a l i t y t o ccncrete ones such a s clean water and s a f e streeta.. . I n t h i s


made, a person i s responding in t e r n of t h e e f f e c t s of public o b j e c t s on cohl e c t i v e goods
i f they ere

--

goods which a r e available t o all members of t h e c o l l e c t i v i t y

produced

a t a11e7 W
e acknowledge t h a t i n many eases her d e s i r e

t h a t euch goods b e produced may mask a s o l i d a r i t y group o r concrete personal

interest b u t , i f she is wing Mode C, t h e system s t a t e s have acquired funct i o n a l autonmy &s a way of thinking about politics.

She r a c t s t o public

o b j e c t s by how they a f f e c t these c o l l e c t i v e goode without d i r e c t reference


t o e u ~ g r 0 u po r personal i n t e r e s t s that may ultimately support her b e l i e f s .

Like persons using o t h e r modes, she may need guidance on how'given o b j e c t s

affect hlBP

CBDCBXPB.

Soma of her a t t i t u d e e ma9 be mediated by surrogates:

W pafs f o r t h e system.

Euvh$ st.tcbsd each nod. b r i e f l y , we w i l l not present each one i n d e t a i l .

We U& tW By erpplyirrg t h e modas t o concrete hypothetical exmnple~on


and busling, To m o i d associating a given d e with any particular

Vietaaa,

or

valence @ "eide" on these issues, we w i l l pneaent two


A

contracting examples

o f Bach mode ,In optllration on'each s i d e of the two issues.

Pereonel Ibmerience;

#ode br

People win$ thie mode attend t o p o l i t i c s i f these events impinge on t h e i r


live8 in a
who

CatCrete way.

W
e include here e f f e c t s on family and fr1e.de.

G e e

attempting to lead live61 of quiet dignity under d i f f i c u l t circumstances

Blt8

my W e q u i t e a 1;ioJteB damaio of relevance when i t comes t o p o l i t i c s .


of what

$8

aews

1-y

$6t

covered

Bhch

orr tbe f r o n t page of a d a i l y .newspaper o r on the television

t o ewm'very renote indeed, without any obvious relevance.

The p e 1 1 3 ~ 8 l l ~ i c aerxit
n from V i e t n a m i s a good example of an event
t h a t ie ualftrely t o be In t h e domain of relevance of most people operating i n
Durh$ tb period in which more than half a million Americans

tbir mod%

were statioPed kr Viatnsm and t h e r e were daily casualty lists, some might very

w e l l have

friead, r e h t i v e , o r a f r i e d ' s son I n danger and the war might

their damsin. By 1975, t h e war would have lost its salience f o r most

eat-

euch people;.
For the purposes of our example, we ' k i l l assume

the

is e t m s a l i e n t .

T&

8a

individual f o r whom

Perhaps the person is a disabled veteran of the w a r

euch ae the lnen quoted a t the begirmlng of this paper.

. '

180th

of orre of t h e 56,000 Americana k l l l e d there.

Perhapa she i s the

Connected with such an

important personal experience, t h e V i e t n a war i s l i k e l y t o remain i n t h e


domain of relevance even though t h e personal consequences a r e i n ' t h e p a s t
r a t h e r than t h e present.
The f i l i n g s y s t e n of someone r e l y i n g on t h i s mode i s based on types of
interpersonal situations.

We assume t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e aa g r e a t v a r i e t y among

i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e content of t h e i r c a t e g o r i e s and, hence, w e are unable t o


s a y a s such about them i n generel as w e would l i k e .

hie hope t h a t t h e r e a r e

c e r t a i n widely used c a t e g o r i e s t h a t can be discovered empirically.

For example,

t y p i c a l l y c l a s s i f y t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t o those with f r i e n d s and

people may

i n t i m a t e s , t h o s e with a s s o c i a t e s , those with subordinates o r superordinates,


and t h o s e w i t h people who a r e b a s i c a l l y h o s t i l e .

They may c l a s s i f y t h e i r

i n t e r a c t i o n s between those t h a t have p l e a s a n t personal consequences and those


t h a t don't.
I n any event, we assume t h a t they have son?e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t-ypes of
i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s t h t enables them t o frame the a c t i v i t i e s i n which
they engage i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s .

To a s s i m i l a t e a p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t , they

~ u s determine
t
i n which of t h e i r f i l e s i t belongs.

Their c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

need not have such p r o p e r t i e s a s mutual exclusiveness o r exhaustfveqess.


Hence, they may decide t h a t a p o l i t i c a l event is l i k e s e v e r a l types of i n t e r personal s i t u a t i o n s they know, o r l i k e none a t a l l .
With t h e freedom t h a t our h y p o t h e t i c a l c a s e g i v e s us, w e w i l l assume an
i n d i v i d u a l who has a category of "fighting" t o which she can a s s i m i l a t e t h e
Vietnam War.

The h e r i c a n e x i t from Vietnam i s t h e eod of a f i g h t .

We s t i l l

don't know what h e r a t t i t u d e w i l l be u n t i l we know what s h e t h i n k s about


fights.
category.

To complicate m a t t e r s f u r t h e r , "fighting" may not be t h e only r e l e v a n t


Vietnam involvement might a l s o be c l a s s i f i e d as a job o r t a s k vol-

u n t a r i l y under taken.

me

grammar of b e l i e f s of someone u s i n g t h i s mode c o n s i s t s of b e l i e f s

about p e r s o n a l conduct in i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s .

may b e p r e s c r i p t i v e :

Some of t h e s e b e l i e f s

f o r example, "Do unto o t h e r s as you would have them do

unto you," o r "Look b e f o r e you leap."

Others may be e m p i r i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s :

f o r example, "Blue-eyed people are untrustworthy," o r "People a r e more l i k e l y


t o keep promises i f they make them p u b l i c l y . "

Individuals operating i n t h i s

mode have c e r t a i n f a v o r i t e s which they have i n h e r i t e d from p a r e n t s o r learned


\

i n o t h e r ways.

They u s e them t o apply l e s s o n s about i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s

t o politics.
To know how a person o p e r a t i n g i n t h i s mode w i l l respond t o t h e American

withdrawal from Vietnam, w e need t o know t h e content: of h i s grammar.

W
e sug-

g e s t e d e a r l i e r t h a t one a p p l i c a b l e p a r t of t h e grammar i s t h a t d e a l i n g w i t h
f i g h t s . ' T h e r e a r e p o t e n t i a l l y many d i f f e r e n t b e l i e f s t h a t might be p a r t of
such a person's grammar.

For example, he might g i v e h i g h p r i o r i t y t o t h e

b e l i e f , " ~ o n ' t g e t involved i n o t h e r people's q u a r r e l s " and "Turn t h e o t h e r


cheek."

Conversely, or simultaneously, he might g i v e p r i o r i t y t o "Everyone

should h e l p a f r i e n d i n need," and "Only a coward runs from a f i g h t . "

If

t h e war a l s o happens t o b e c a t e g o r i z e d as a job undertaken v o l u n t a r i l y , then


such b e l i e f s a s "Fish o r c u t b a i t , " and "Anything worth doing i s worth doing

well" may b e a p p l i e d a l s o .
The grammar of a mode i s i t s h e a r t

--

i t determines much of t h e meaning

and v a l e n c e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l u l t i m a t e l y a t t a c h t o t h o s e p o l i t i c a l
o b j e c t s t h a t she a t t e n d s t o and can a s s i m i l a t e .

Most grammars c o n t a i n poten-

t i a l contraditions.

T h i s may c r e a t e no problem w i t h many o b j e c t s s i n c e t h e

c o n t r a d i c t o r y elements may n o t b e simultaneously a c t i v a t e d .

I f they a r e , t h e

i n d i v i d u a l w i l l g e t confused and f l u c t u a t e i n a v o l a t i l e f a s h i o n a s f i r s t one

rule and then its o p p o s i t e seems s a l i e n t .

Frequently, s h e w i l l b e a b l e t o

keep them sufficiently cmga-itnentalized no that basically consistent ones

will b e operative and she w i l l produce a relatively stable attitude toward

the obf ect Under =st circumstx~ces

Predicting what a x e d i r d i v i d u l thinks about Vietnam or any other issue

reqdres that we h o w not only she mode being ueed but something of the content.
It is Important to h d w che made for interpretins

Thio ie an a p i r i e a l task.
what: a person i s saying.

W
e prstride two vignette8 of individmls using a

personal expsrience mode to i3.lusurrre how such a mode might be applted to

Vf etnam:
Person #I: "ZVvebeen following the war newe because I had a aon ovex

there who was killed about three years ago.

I never did understand whae he

died for -- you Imow, what we were fighting for.

But it doesn't seem to me

that it could have been worth the ' . l i v e s of all these American boys.

~ind

you, X hoped the Sautk ~ietnhrmesecould do the Jot on their own, but i f they
cani t, that's their pr~b&emand not o u r s .

As for thase argments about fight-

h g for oua: country and far justice, they jusr don't make much sense to me.

Where i s the justice in having my son killed and my friends' sons killed?
What good does i t do for the comtzy? Itqs Just nm~3nseand I b giad we're

f i n a l l y out of it."

Pereon #2:

*'I. don't laow whether we should have been in there or not

but I do know this:

Nothing good comes from running away from a fight.

If

peopie see that you are weak-willed and u n w l l l l n g t o follow through on sane-

thing you started, they w i l l take advantage of you.

Maybe that's not the best

place to stand up a d Light for what %e believe in, but sooner or later, we

are going t o have to show that we can't be pushed around.


that.

World War I1 proved

Millions of pe0pI.e were k i l l e d because we didn't atop Hitler early

when we had our beat chance.

I fought in that war and I l o s t a l o t of friends.

I l a o w a l o t of people say we shouldnrqt have gotten iPvolved in Vietnam and


per&aps they're right.

But once we got involved, it was our f i g h t Loo and a

l o t of 'people w e r e depend-

on ua.

W
e shouldn't have let those people down."
For some,

Apply t h e same mode t o bussing t o achieve r a c i a l Integration.


it is a remate iasue, happen*

ira other comaunities t o other people.

In

cammnmft;iea where the black population is negligtble, f o r example, mst Inhabi-

t a n t s a r e unlikely t o perceive tiny d i r e c t , concrete e f f e c t s on t h e i r personal


lives.

Events occurring a r d u d t h i s socisr c o n t r o v e r ~ ywould not f a l l ~sthe.

domain of relevance of people using t h i s mode.

I f our hypothetical person happens t o be a resident of Roxbury o r South


Boston, it

$8

extremely l i k e l y t o be i n her domain of relevance.

If she does

'not herself have chfldren who would b e bussed, she is almost certa5n t o have

friends or neighbors who'are intensely concerned.

In any event, we w l l l

assume a person with a c h i l d who, under a court ordered integration plan, wodd
be bussed t o a school i n a neighboring crmmrunfty.

There a r e many way& i n which this.camplex stimulus event could be filed.

For our example, we w i l l assume that the person has a category of mente
igvoluntarily affecting family members and intimatee, including a sub-category

of potentially danigeroue events.

W
e w i l l further assume that "Protect your'

loved ones from danger" occupies a central place in her grammar of beliefs.
Such a person might express her artftoda as follows:
'person

83:

"I don' t care what they do about bussing anywhere e l a e in

t h e country -- they caa.do what they l i k e , it's no akin off my back.


nothing against Black people.

I'm a l l f o r c i v i l rights.

r i g h t e and are e n t i t l e d t o demand c e r t a i n - t h h g s .


best education they can g e t .

I have

I believe they have

I think they deserve the

I ' m f o r those things.

But I don't w a ~ tmy kid

bussed somewhere where there might be danger o r a t the very least disruption

in t h e way t h e school operates.

So I'm a g a i n s t t h e bussing of my son and of

t h e sons and daughters of o t h e r s siho feel as I do.

A s f o r the more general,

philosophical arguments on eLther s i d e of the issue

-- t h e supreme court deci-

aions and the r i g h t s of t h i s person and t h a t person

-- 1 don't

tbhgs.

fcllow those

They don't i n t e r e s t me."

or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , If it is c l a s s i f i e d a s less dangerous:


Person #4: "1 don't r e e l l y see t h a t i t makes t h a t much difference.
Bussing i t s e l f doesn't h u r t anybody. f took busses t o school and it's nothing'
t o make s x'uss about.

I want my kid t o get a good education. Xt's n o t clear

t h a t t h e school he goes t o now i s a l l t h a t great.

It's a l l the controversy

and fuss that is m k h g f o r problen~s'?' I f people would j u s t q u i e t down and get

on with

t h e job or' education, I t h i n k i t would be b e t t e r for everybody."

People using t h i a node a t t e ~ dto p o l i t f c s i f p o l i t i c a l events a f f e c t


groups with which they i d e n t i f y .

mode.

There are two important v a r i a n t s of t h i s

In one, the fndividual has a single overriding group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .

This is e s p e c i a l l y likely t o be t r u e of minority group members such as Blacks

or Jews but might include workers o r o t h e r bases of s o l i d a r i t y besides ethniI

city.

Xn t h e second variant, the individual has a series of group i d e n t i f f -

c a t i o n s of varying l e v e l s of i n t e n s i t y .

Fur m ~ s tpeople i n e i t h e r v a r i a n t ,

much of what i s covered i n t h e f r o n t page of a daily newspaper cr on t h e telev i s i o n news is not l i k e l y t o have much obvious relevance f o r t h e i r identiPication graups.

~ n ' o u rexample, we w i l l assuse that t h e person r e l y k g on t h i s mode is


Black ana has a strong Black i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .

There is no strong reason t o

expect t h e withdrawal from Vietnam t o be In h e r domain of relevance.

Although

an argument can be made t h a t a disproportionate c o e t of the war f e l l upon

Black people, t h e r e is l i t t l e e v i d k c e t o suggest t h a t most Black people saw


t h e war as d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t i n g t h e i z group.

To m k e t h i s ' i s s u e p a r t of her domain of relevance, we w i l l

$0

assume t h a t she a l s o has a strong i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with t h e s o l i d a r y group,


"Americans,"
The f i l i n g rsystem of a person r e l y i n g on t h i s mode i s made up of groups,
some her swn, some neutral, and some h o s t i l e .

TRe f i l i n g system not only con-

t a i n s categories but croes references based on r e l a t i o n s h i p s among groups.


Thus, she can a s s f m i l ~ t eriot only events t h a t a f f e c t her own groups but those
t h a t a f f e c t other groups in her f i l e s .

The a c t of a s s i m i l a t i n g a public object

involves c l a s s i f y i n g it w i t h other o b j e c t s t h a t a f f e c t group i n t e r e s t s i n a

simihr way.

For a person r e l y i n g exclusively on t h i s mode, every public

obJect t h a t is assimilated is a s o l i d a r i t y issue.


The greumnar of b e l i e f a of someone using
t h i s mode c o n s i s t s of b e l i e f s
... .
about inter-group r e l a t i o n s .

These b e l i e f s govern.the o b l i g a t i o n s toward


.
-

one's fellow members and


toward various categories of outsiders.
, from t h. e. grammar of b e l i e f s include such things as:

Examples

"If we d o n 0 t hang to-

gether, then s u r e l y w e , s h a l l a1 hang separately," "May my country always be


r i g h t , but my country r i g h t o r wrong,P' "Now is the t h e f o r a l l good men to.
come t o t h e a i d of the party," "Don't wash d i r t y l i n e n in public," "Don't bad
'-,

mouth a brother t o an outsider," "Blood is thicker than water," "My enemy's


enemy l a my friend;,,my f r i e n d ' s enemy is my enemy,',' and "In a f i g h t between
.

a group member and an outsider, always back the group . member.''


.
..

&.always, we need. t o. know more about the content of t h e f i l i n g systeqi


,

and gr-ammar of b e l l e f e before w e could predict how a person using t h i s mode

thinks about: t h e V i e t n a m withdrawal.

An example of such a person using t h i s

mode might 'run as follows:


Person #5:

"Myself, I ' m glad i t ' s over.

w e r e a f t e r over there.

I never d i d understand what we

There d i d n ' t . seem t o be anything t o gain.

have any q u a r r e l with those V i e t Cong e i t h e r .


o u r s a s f a r a s I can see.

And I don't

They don't have anything t h a t ' s

W e never should have become t h e i r enemy.

(Pause)

A l o t of people were k i l l e d

-- and

we d i d n ' t g e t out e a r l i e r .

A s f o r those arguments about p a t r i o t i s m and f i g h t -

a l o t of them Black, too, I ' m only s o r r y

ing f o r freedom, I don't know what they are t a l k i n g about.

Our freedom, such

a s i t is, was never t h r e i t e n e d and t h e r e is nothing p a t r i o t i c about supporting

an unnecessary war."
or, alternatively,
Person #6:

" I ' m opposed t o t h e withdrawal.

Look, t h i s i s our country, r i g h t ?


licked.

How can anyone support i t ?

Well, I don't l i k e t o see our country g e t

1'; proud of i t and I want t o s e e i t be a winner.

I don't r e a l l y

know how w e got involved over t h e r e but we a r e involved now and nothing can
change t h a t .

I n f a c t , we're involved so much t h a t I j u s t c a n ' t s e e t h e per-

centage i n ending up l o s e r s .

W e ' l l j u s t look r e a l l y bad.

That t o me over-

r i d e s a l l those arguments about l o s s of l i f e and l i t t l e t o gain; o r : those


t e c h n i c a l i t i e s about a d e c l a r a t i o n of war.
my country t o be number one, always.

It comes down t o t h i s :

I'd l i k e

1)

Bussing i s l i k e l y t o be a highly s a l i e n t i s s u e f o r a Black person who is


using t h i s mode.

Although h i s a t t i t u d e may be q u i t e complex, he is almost

c e r t a i n t o be aware t h a t t h e i s s u e involves black-white r e l a t i o n s .

Hence, i f

h i s Black i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is c e n t r a l , this' i s s u e w i l l be i n h i s domain of


relevance.

A s f o r f i l i n g t h e issue, t h e r e a r e many cues t h a t those who a r e

h o s t i l e t o h i s group a r e opposed t o court ordered bussing.

There i s no r e a l

need f o r him t o g e t i n t o t h e content of t h e i s s u e t o a s s i m i l a t e i t i n t o h i s

The issue has achievsd a s y n b s l i c s t a t u s which makes t h e

f i l i n g system.

a s s i m i l a t i o n process q u i t e easy and d i r e c t .


A person using t h i s mode might ncit r e a l l y c a r e about t h e i s s u e s involved

i n bussing per se and might be more concerned, f o r example, with q u a l i t y educ a t i o n f o r his children.

However, once t h e bussing i s s u e becomes a black-white

s o l i d a r i t y i s s u e , he will respond i n terms of group l o y a l t y .

Such a person,
.

responding i n a s o l i d a r i t y mode, might say something l i k e t h e following:


Person #7:

"Looking a t i t narrowly, 1 can s e e t h a t , i n t h e s h o r t run,

there i s n ' t much in i t f o r m e o r my people.

The schools a r e bad over t h e r e

and our k i d s could g e t h u r t i f t h e r e i s trouble.


perspective.

years.

But I have t o t a k e a broader.

Those white f o l k s t h a t don't want my c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r schools

W e have been f i g h t i n g a g a i n s t them f o r 400

are t h e esemg of Black people.

I know t h a t t h e Black groups i n town

We're n o t going t o s t o p now.

are f o r bussing here a d elsewhere and I am too.


neighborhood schools o r even eq-1

A s f o r arguments about

opportunity, 1 don't put much s t o c k i n

I mean neighborhood schools a r e n i c e , b u t t h e r e are more important

them.
things.

A s I see it, it's

US

a g a i n s t them and we've got t o stand together

slaw j u s t as w e have before."


or, alternatively:
Person #8:

"I'm a g a i n s t bussing.

them w i t h whites at t h e wrong t h e .


together and demand our due.

they're e n t i t l e d t o ?

It s e p a r a t e s our c h l l d r e n and mingles

This is a ' t i m e when we need t o stand

T h i s bussing program is no b i g g i f t .

as i f they're doing u s a favor.

should we a s s o c i a t e with them?

They a c t

How can i t be a favor t o o f f e r someone what

Their real a t t i t u d e is:

'We don't want you.'

It's bad f o r us, bad f o r our pri&.

So why

And

just because a l o t of whites are a g a i n s t it, doesn't mean we have t o be f o r

it.

We can have our own program."

Mode C:

Ideolom

People using t h i s mode attend t o p o l i t i c s i f p o l i t i c a l events a f f e c t


c o l l e c t i v e goods t h a t a r e important t o them.

Depending an how broad o r

narrow these c o l l e c t i v e goods are, such people m y have l a r g e o r small domahs


of relevance.

I f t h e only c o l l e c t i v e good a person cared about was, f o r

example, a clean and healthful environment, she would l i k e l y f i n d .most of


what is covered on t h e f r o n t gage of a d a i l y newspaper o r on the t e l e v i s i o n
news q u i t e i r r e l e v a n t .
For our example, we w i l l assume z person r e l y i n g on t h i s mode who is
concerned about s e v e r a l s t a t e s of American s o c i e t y t h a t she believes a r e
c l o s e l y interdependent:

freed-,

preservation of t h e "American way of l i f e , "

and n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y defined in terms o f . m i l i t a r y strength.

,Public objects

a r e i n her domain of relevance i f they a f f e c t these c o l l e c t i v e goods,


The Vietnam War i s l i k e l y t o be i n the domain of relevance of such a

person, although it aaay have arrived t h e r e q u i t e l a t e @ . Public f i g u r e s have


t o l d her, i n e f f e c t , that the war e f f o r t is h e l p f u l t o the c o l l e c t i v e goods
t h a t she c a r e s about.

The f i l i n g system 02 soneone relying on t h i s mode i s based on common o r


similar effects.

To a s s i m i l a t e a p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t , people using t h i s mode

c l a s s i f y it with other o b j e c t s t h a t a r e linked i n t h e same instrumental way to


t h e i r desired system s t a t e s .

The exact content' of t h e f i l i n g system of a

person using t h i s mode, as with other modes, is an empirical question.

In

our hypothetical example, we caE assume t h a t "war" is a catkgory t h a t is


r e l a t e d t o such c o l l e c t i v e goods as "f~eedom," "The American Way of Life,"
and "national security,"
The grammar of b e l i e f s of someone using t h i s mode c o n s i s t s of b e l i e f s
r e l a t i n g c l a s s e s of p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s t o c o l l e c t i v e goods.

These b e l i e f s

-18-

t a k e c a t e g o r i e s such a s "war" or "the gwermnent i n Washington" and r e l a t e


them t o o t h e r p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s t h a t a r e d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y linked t o
c o l i e c t i v e goods.

W e w i l l appropriate t h e term "ideologyt' t o r e f e r t o a

grammar of b e l i e f s of t h i s type.

Example of elements fn an ideology include,

"That government i s b e s t t h a t governs l e a s t , " "Power c o r r u p t s and absolute


power c o r r u p t s absolutely," "Individual i n i t i a t i v e produces a s o c i e t y w i t h
t h e g r e a t e s t good f o r t h e g r e a t e s t number," "The Democratic Party tends t o
favor a more a c t i v e u s e of governmental power t o solve domestic,problems, I t

"Never g e t involved i n a land war i n Asda," "Comrmmism is a t h r e a t t o freedom,"


and "Bking strong m i l i t a r i l y is t h e s u r e s t way t o preserve t h e s e c u r i t y of
t h e country."

An ideology may have c o n t r a d i c t o r y elements j u s t as t h e other

grammars may.

W e do not assunie t h a t t h i s mode is n e c e s s a r i l y more i n t e r n a l l y

consistent.

A s we use the term here, i d e o l o g i e s may range from s o p h i s t i c a t e d

t o primitive.
Without knowing t h e content of t h e grammnr, we could not know how a
person using thls mode would respond t o t h e American withdrawal from vie<-m.

It could be viewed a s t h e l i q u i d a t i o n of a c o s t l y blunder t h a t was weakening


t h e country and giving a i d and comfort t o i t s enemies.

relief.

tie could respond with

O r the withdrawal might be seen as an a c t of b e t r a y a l of important

c o l l e c t i v e goods that were b e h g defended by t h e American e f f o r t i n V i e t n a m .

An example of a a Vietnam a t t i t u d e o f @a person using t h i s mode might run a s


follows :
Person 69:

"The way we a r e running o u t of Vietnam worries me a l o t .

Communism s t a n d s a g a i n s t our .way of l i f e .


a l l disappear under Communism.
trample on t h e s e things.

Freedom, democracy, and r e l i g i o n

Not t h a t we're p e r f e c t or anything, but they

might now t h e Communists have a l o t of Asia.

a r e pushing f o r s t i l l more.

They

If we l e t them t a k e South Vietnam, t h e y ' l l j u s t

il

-19keep r i g h t on going.

'

I believe they a r e a threat t o our way of l i f e and I

b e l i e v e we should have stayed t h e r e t o e g h t them.

Those arguments about too

zany American l i v e s being l o s t and about too much domestic unrest don't move

me.

War is t e r r i b l e , but t h e preservation of our way of l i f e is worth the price,

As f o r unrest, t h e r e are.always people who don't understand what i s a t stake in


a war and some of them are troublmakers.

But they a r e no big problem; they

have a p e r f e c t r i g h t t o p r o t e s t a s long a s they do i t peacefully,

or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,
Person #lo: "I think we should have withdrawn from Vietnam four years ago.

I n f a c t , we never should have sent' our boys t h e r e i n t h e f i r s t place.


f o r Communism o r anythlng

-- I know they may be a t h r e a t t o us.

remains t h a t t h e w a r was never,declared.

I ' m not

But t h e f a c t

Congress never decided t h a t we should

y e t i n t o t h i s War, t h e way t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n says it's supposed t o happen.


Johnson and a few Congressmen j u s t fooled u s i n t o thinking they had t h e r i g h t

t o send our bogs over there.


bothered me.

But they had no r i g h t and t h a t ' s what always

That's why t h e American people never supported t h i s war and why

we're b e t t e r off our of it."


To apply the same mode t o bussing, we w i l l assume that the person r e l y i n g

on t h i s mode has i n h i s f i l i n g system a category about "exercises of governmental authority."

Some exercises involve p o s i t i v e a c t s t h a t help t o preserve

t h e s t a t e s of t h e system that he is concerned about.

Other exercises a r e seen

aa unwanted i n t r u s i o n s of t h e government, examples of i t doing things it has


no business doing.

To understand what he thinks about bussing we would have

t o know more about t h e content of h i s grnmmnr of b e l i e f s .

An example of a bus-

?ing a t t i t u d e of a person using t h i s mode might run as follows:

Person 811:

"I r e a l l y don't t h i n k it's necessary.

Mostly i t ' s been t h e

government using f o r c e t o get people t o do things they don't want t o do.

Now

i f t h e s e people had done something wrong, w e l l then I ' d see i t .

But they

a r e j u s t ordinary people t r y i n g t o run t h e i r l i v e s and g e t t h e i r k i d s through


the& schools.

These people a r e r e a l l y upset.

I ' v e seen t h e f a c e s on some

W e l l , I ' m a g a i n s t t h e government

of them and they a r e r e a l l y worked up.

f o r c i n g people a g a i n s t t h e i r will unless i t ' s a b s o l u t e l y necessary


p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c safety o r something l i k e that.
Blacks g e t t i n g a n equal education,
n o t through the use of force.

-- l i k e t o

H e r e it 's a matter of
)

Well, I t h i n k they're e n t i t l e d t o that but

There are o t h e r ways such as impraving t h e i r

schoola o r i n t e g r a t i n g nelghborhcods."

or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,
Person 912:
'

"I t h i n k you've gor t o comply with c o u r t orders.

was based on supreme c o u r t decisions.

Whether you're f o r bussing o r a g a i n s t

i t , you have t o allow it t o t a k e place.


where would we be?

The order

The l a w is t h e law and v i t h o u t laws,

Personally, I don't c a r e e i t h e r way about bussing

rode a bus t o school when I was a kid and I never l i k e d i t much.


who a r e r e e i s t i n g bussing are wrong

- they're

But people

r e s i s t i n g the constttution.

I t ' s l i k e George Wallace standing i n t h e doorway of t h a t University,


thing, only it's happening i n t h e North.

-- I

H know t h a t

so=

Same

people are going

t o b e hurt o r unhappy but they don't have the right t o disobey the law."

Swmnary of Modes.

Chart 2 summarizes our i n i t i a l statement of t h e t h r e e

modes of thinking
about p o l i t i c s .
4'
t h r e e s t r u c t u r a l elements:

In it, we c r o s s t h e three modes w i t h t h e

domain of relevance, f i l i n g system, and grammar

of b e l i e f s .

----------Chart 2 About Here


----------

Surrogate A t t i t u d e s
Not everyone i s i n t e r e s t e d in p o l i t i c s .
o r a confusing scene.

For many people i t is a bore

They f i n d i t necessary t o d e a l wfth p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s

from time t o time because t h i n g s that they are concerned, about a r e a f f e c t e d .


However, they are w i l l i n g t o u t i l i z e s i g n i f i c a n t s h o r t c u t s f o r thinking
about p o l i t i c s when t h e s e a r e conveniently a v a i l a b l e .
t h e most s o p h i s t i c a t e d observer of t h e p o l i t i c a l scene.

T h i s is also true for

Even such a person

i s n ' t l i k e l y t o have a f u l l y developed, w e l l thought through p o s i t i o n on


every p o l i t i c a l i s s u e or a knowledgable judgment about every p u b l i c man o r
woman.

The major s h o r t cut: t h a t w e use i s t o r e l y heavily on t h e judgment of

others.

E s s e n t i a l l y , everybody's a t t i t u d e s . are mediated,. i n varying degrees,

by t r u s t and p e r s o c a l influence.

W
e w i l l c a l l att1,tudes a r r i v e d a t i n t h i s

fashion. s u r r o g a t e a t t i t u d e s .
I n s t e a d of being mediated by applying a grammar of b e l i e f s , surrogate
a t t i t u d e s are mediated by o t h e r people.

Such o t h e r people may be those one

knows d i r e c t l y and i n t e r a c t s wfth personally, o r those known t o one through


t h e mass media, %.e., p u b l i c f i g u r e s .

Candidates f o r p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e a r e a

p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g c l a s s of p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s ; l e a d e r s of s o c i a l
movements a r e another.
Support f o r a p o l i t i c a l figure i s a form of p o l i t i c a l t r u s t .

It is t h e

analogy a t a public l e v e l t o personal i n f l u e n c e a t t h e l e v e l of face-to-face


i n t e r a c t i o n . : The process is one of r e l y i n g t o some degree on t h e judgment
of o t h e r s ,

This does n o t mean t h a t one'.necessarily suspends one's own iade-

pendent judgment though t h i s occure o f t e n enough.

W e f r e q u e n t l y suspend our

judgment on an i s s u e because we t r u s t o t h e r people's judgment f o r one r e i s o n

or another.
The e x t e n t t o which an a t t i t u d e is mediated by t r u s t o r mediated through

,. '

'a grant&& 'bf beliefs a f f e c t s t h e anchoring of


.I

an a t t i t u d e .

By an anchored

a t t i t u d e , w e mean one r e f l e c t f n g a s t a b l e a t t r i b u t e of a person ' r a t h e r than


a n off-hand response t o a f l e e t i n g stimulus.

W e l l anchored a t t i t u d e s w i l l b e "

r e l i a b l y produced by a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t stimulus eventa.

we d i s t i n g u i s h s u r r o g a t e a t t i t u d e s sharply from non-attitudes.

I n t h i s sense,
W e regard them

as s u f f i c i e n t l y anchored t o be worthy of study as a ' c l a s s i n t h e i r own r i g h t .


It i s a hypothesis of our argument t h a t a t t i t u d e s which a r e mediated by
both s u r r o g a t e s and by a grammar of b e l i e f s w i l l be e s p e c i a l l y well anchored.

They w i l l b e less s u s c e p t i b l e t o change over time, b u t t r e s s e d as they are In


t h i s double fashion.

The question of t h e p l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y of a t t i t u d e s t h a t

mediated by surrogates remains open.

are

W e reserve t h e term full fledged

a t t i t u d e t o d e s c r i b e an a t t i t u d e mediated by b o t h i n mutually c o n s i s t e n t

f eshion.
Chart 3 expresses t h i s modification of our o r i g i n a l model, introducing
surrogates a s an a l t e r n a t i v e mediator t o produce an a t t i t u d e while by-passing
t h e grammar of b e l i e f s .

W
e emphasize again t h a t both pathways t o an a t t i t u ' d e

may be u t i l i z e d by an individual s i m u l t a n e o u s l ~i n varying degrees.

----------Chart 3 About Here


------------The reasons t h a t we use f o r r e l y i n g on one o r another personPs judgment

are b p o r t a n t and vary-

by mode.

We argue t h a t t h e r e is a d i f f e r e n t b a s i s

underlying t r u s t i n p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s in each mode.

For t h e personal experi-

ence mode, one t r u s t s public f i g u r e s on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r code of personal


conduct.

A person r e l y i n g on t h i s mode asks whether t h e f i g u r e has q u a l i t i e s

of personal c h a r a c t e r o r p e r s o n a l i t y t h a t bode w e l l f o r h i s o r her conduct


in o f f i c e .
.

The c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s emphasized w i l l vary f r o m i n d i v i d u a l t o

i n d i v i d u a l but among'Americans they a r e l i k e l y t o include such t h i n g s a s

honesty, decency,.experience, trustworthiness, courage, f o r t i t u d e , decisiven e s s and t h e l i k e .

A person operating i n t h e s o l i d a r i t y m o d e t r u s t s p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s on
b e t r u s t s those who s h a r e t h e

t h e b a s i s of t h e s o l i d a r i t i e s . they e x h i b i t .

same s o l i d a r i t i e s and show t h a t they a r e w i l l i n g t o a c t on t h e b a s i s of those


solidarities,

A person operatfng i n an i d e o l o g i c a l mode trusts those who give indicat i o n s t h a t they want and a r e a b l e t o achieve d e s i r e d c o l l e c t i v e goods.

One

. '

i s l i k e l y t o be concerned about t h e programs and p o l i c i e s t h a t a p o l i t i c a l


f i g u r e advocates and pursuee.
With a l l modes, such judgments about p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s may be w e l l sup-

ported o r based on flimsy and u n r e l i a b l e information.

To i l l u s t r a i e how t h e

modes might be applied t o . p o l i t f c s l 1 f i g u r e s , we w i l l imagine a group of people

durfng t h e 1976 p r e s i d e n t i a l primary season, e x p r e s s h g t h e i r reasons f o r


p r e f e r r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r candidate3
For t h e personal experience mode:
Person #13:

''Well, I p r e f e r S i m y Carter,

It seems t o me t h a t he's a
Be i s n ' t crazy and likely

p r e t t y open person, ready t o l i s t e n t o new ideas.

t o stir t h i n g s up too much b u t he might be able t o g e t us out of some of t h e


mess w e ' r e i n .

H e doesn't seem reckless.

p r e t t y w e l l as governor.

I understand he conducted himself

H e made a l o t of friends down t h e r e and not too

many enemies t h a t I can see.

H e sounds l i k e he's

i d e a s and I don't t h i n k t h a t things a r e going s o

ready t o t r y some f r e s h

weir

t h a t w e can a f f o r d t o

stand p a t with t h e answers we've been using."


or, alternatively,
Person # l 4 :
,

he stands.

"My candidate is President Ford.

You h o w e x a c t l y where

He is t r y i n g h i s b e s t t o do a d i f f i c u l t job.

The man doesn't

have any r e a l malice i n him.

Th+ngs don't seem t o be going s o badly t h a t

we need t o break i n somebody new."


For t h e s o l i d a r i t y mode:
Person 1/15:

"I'm f o r Senator Jackson.

I ' m Jewish and one of t h e things

I ' m r e d l y concerned about i s the survival of I s r a e l .

Senator Jackson is t h e

only person who r e a l l y seems t o c a r e about the issue.

The o t h e r s make a l o t

of t h e r i g h t noises but you can t e l l they don't r e a l l y c a r e one way o r t h e


other.

They're j u s t being p o l i t i c a l .

But Jackson has shown i n a l o t of ways

The f a c t t h a t he's not Jewish i s a l l the b e t t e r

t h a t he's r e a l l y conmitted.

because he doesn't have t o bend over backwards so t h a t people won't think

he's being biased."


or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,
Person #l6:

"I support George Wallace.

w t l l h g t o t e l l . them where t o g e t off.

He's t h e only one t h a t ' s r e a l l y

I know those kinds of people -- t h e

ones who call him a " r a c i s t " and c a l l those of us who support him "racists."
\

Theyke t h e ones who l i v e out i n t h e suburbs and never pay t h e consequencee

of anything t h a t happens.

they're

Or they're pointy-headed i n t e l l e c t u a l s who think

s o smart but then mess everything up with t h e i r fancy, University

developed programs f o r which

bear t h e social c o s t s .

Wallace has got the

i n t e r e s t of t h e ordinary man a t h e a r t and the more they look down on him


and the more
. . they make fun of what he says, and how he says i t , t h e more

I'm f o r him."
For t h e ideological mode:
Person #17:
should be.

"I prefer Governor ~ e a g a n . H e has a vision. of what America

H e hasn't l o s t d i r e c t i o n a s a l o t of o t h e r s have and s t i l l main-

tains a sense of what is r e a l l y important f o r t h e country.

H e recognizes

t h a t excessive concern with one's image.in t h e world is sentimental nonsense

-..
t h a t doesn't really p r o t e c t our n a t i o o a l i n t e r e s t .

H e wants t o leave people

free t o . p u r s u e t h e i r p r i v a t e concerns without t o o much government meddling.


This is how we got t o be t h e r i c h e s t and most powerful country in t h e world.
H e showed a s Governor t h a t he had enough courage t o push unpopular measures

through that were necessary but d i f f i c u l t t o t a k e i n t h e s h o r t run

-- f o r

example, c u t t i n g people o f f t h e public payroll."


or, alternatively,
/

Person 818:

f o r No Udall.

"I'm

H e has a long established record i n

Congress on a lot of issues and he kas shown himself t o be a c o n s i s t e n t l i b e r a l ,

o r progressive, o r whatever you want t o c a l l . 3 . t .

The f a c t i s t h a t h e ' s been

on the r i g h t side most of t h e t h e and sometimes before i t became t e r r i b l y


popular t o b e on t h a t s i d e .

Furthermore, he played a leadership r o l e in Con-

g r e s s i n l i n i n g up o t h e r s on a l o t of important f a s u e s

-- f o r example,

on

p r o t e c t i n g t h e environment."
Chart 4 expands t h e summary of t h e modes i n Chart 2 t o include t h e d i f f e r e n t bases f o r choosing surrogates i n mediating p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s .

-----------Chart 4 About Here

--------

W
e have sketched t h r e e modes t h a t we believe a r e t h e most widely used
/'

by Americans i n thinking about p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t s .

W e claim no o r i g i n a l i t y

f o r t h e d i v i s i o n idto modes besed on concrete personal experience, s o l i d a r i -

ties, and ideology.

0x1 t h e contrary, we t h i n k t h a t much of t h e l i t e r a t u r e

on p o l i t i c e l a t t i t u d e s and voting of t h e . l a s t 30 years has emphasized o n e . o r


another of t h e s e modes.

However, t h e r e a r e a number of non-obvious implica-

t i o n e of t r e a t i n g t h e modes a s we have here.


Modes a s Vectors.

We do n o t assume that only some small e l i t e has

c o l l e c t i v e goods t h a t they care about..

On t h e contrary,.we assume t h a t every-

one has s t a t e s of t h e sgsters t h a t concern than b u t not everyone uses these


c o l l e c t i v e goods as a baeie f o r t h f d c h g about p o l i t i c s .

By the same token,

.alaaost everyone,has some group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s but not everyone uses these


.

:.

i&entif'ications a s a b a s i s f o r responding t o p o l i t i c s .

Finally, w e all have

our ways o f ' dealing with i n t e r p i r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n without necessarily using


our b e l i e f s in this area as a b a s i s f o r approaching most p o l i t i c a l events.
We peremally use aL1 three modes on d i f f e r e n t occasions although we r e l y

'most heavily on the ideological mode.


Proxmire r i d i c u l i n g

We know t h a t when we read of Senator'

s t u d i e s .of s o c i a l p e y c h o l o ~ i e t s ,we f e e l t h e tug of

s o l i d a r i t y outweighing the arguments on t h e merits o r demerits of t h e peer


review system i n science.

We would a o t t e e t i f y c r i t i c a l l y before Senator

P r o d r e about fhe atudy.of a feflow eocial a c i e n t i a t e v d though we'might

have severe resenrations about h l ~ lo r her work.

Such criticisme, i n our

s o l i d a r i t y beliefs, should be reserved f o r i n t e r n a l "scientific" forums r a t h e r

than "politicaJ."

forums.

Senator Prownire i e not a member of our guild.

Similarly, whep w e read about Senator Kennedy's behavior a t Chappiquidick,


we a r e teapted t o

attend*

'.

make judgment8 about h i s personal character r a t h e r than

t o h i s p o l i k i c a l . a c t s and the p o l i t i c a l p o l i c i e s wlth which he Is

identified.

Moat of the time, however, we r e l y on an ideological mode.

To treat'modes a s an a t t r i b u t e of an individual, i t i s -st


think of them a s elements i n a probability vector.

useful t o

W
e assume t h a t an indi-

vidual has a welght attached t o each mode r e f l e c t i n g a probability of uee.


We d l w for t h e p o s s i b i l i t y that some people w i l l use only one mode; thus

they would have an entry of 1.0 f o r t h i s mbde while the other two would carry

a weight of 0 .
It i s reasonable t o hypothesize t h a t moat people have a favored mode.

Indeed, i f one l a c k s any ideology f o r dealing with p o l i t i c a l objects, such a


mode is simply univailable.
two.

The person must then choose from t h e reres+ing.

Some individuals may have no group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s t h a t a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y

s a l i e n t t o be applicable very often. I f they a l s o have no ideology, they


the
w. i l .l simply r e l y on,,personal experience mode i n thinking about p o l i t i c s .
Methods used t o discover the modes people use must employ techniques
t h a t have a p o s s i b i l i t y of evoking a l l t h r e e modes.

The objective of measure-

ment i s n o t t o c l a s s i f y people i n t o modes but t o discover t h e values of t h e i r


mode vector.

This t a s k will be simplified considerably i f i t turns out t h a t

a given i s s u e o r c l a s s of objects is s t a b l y associated with a s i n g l e mode


f o r an individual.

I f t h i s t u r n s out t o be t r u e , then people may be char-

a c t e r i z e d a s r e l y i n g on a s i n g l e mode with r e s p e c t t o a s p e c i f i e d c l a s s of
objects.

W
e a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n a sub-

The Category of "Politics'!

category of public events t h a t we. consider tlpolieical."

This is a meaningful

category f o r u s but we recognize t h a t i t is n o t shared by many c i t i z e n s .


Recently, some papers reported a v i s i t t o t h e United S t a t e s of a ' h e chfld
of a World War I1 romance between an American naval a t t a c h e and a Soviet
\

actress.

For tie,

this

%not

a p o l i t i c a l event; i t does not a f f e c t any of

the c o l l e c t i v e goods which a r e mediated by t h e p o l i t y .

However, w e a r e ready

t o grant that. o t h e r s see this a s an event of considerable i n t e r e s t on which


they have very d e f i n i t e opinions.

Newspapers such a s t h e National Enquirer

devote much of t h e i r coverage t o what are, f o r us, "non-events,"


we claim t h e p r i v i l e g e t h a t any i n v e s t i g a t o r has

of

I n t h e end,

choosing t o study responses

A.

t o public o b j e c t s that i n t e r e s t us but we.do n o t judge o t h e r s f o r finding


d i f f e r e n t events more i n t e r e s t f n g .

We have a non-attitude toward many events

t h a t they may have thought about a t same length.

In asking about t h e p o l i t i c a l

events that i n t e r e s t us, w e do not assume t h a t they employ the same category

of r'political" o b j e c t s that we employ.


Some Methodological Zmplicatfons.

. ,

We have argued that t o understand

and i n t e r p r e t what a person thinks about a p o l i t i c a l object, one must under-

stand.t h e mode of' thinking he i s using.

One needs t o know d i f f e r e n t infor-

For example, information on

mation about t h e person depending on the mode.


.
.

.
.

t h e c o l l e c t i v e goods that a person d e s i r e s i s only relevant f o r understanding


.

'his a t t i t u d e s i f he happens t o be gnlploying an Ideological mode.

Information

on s o l i d a r f t i e s o r codes of personal.conduct are, likewise, only relevant

under certain s p e c i f i c conditions.


Anyone who has had interviewing experience i n conducting sample surveys

. r e a l i z e s that the survey instrument i s an imperfect one, generating a good


d e a l of noise along w i t h the information i t invokes.
i d e n t i f y some of t h e sources of noise.

Our a r w e n t helps t o

We would hypothesize, f o r example,

that interviewer e f f e c t s are most pronounced when a question invokes a


a o l i d a r i t y mode f o r t h e respondent.

A t such a point., t h e intentiewer's


---,

If t h e interviewer appears

s o l i d a r y group a t t r i b u t e s become q u i t e salient.


t o be a member

of

a group regarded as h o s t i l e , the respondent io likely t o

be quite c a r e f u i .In revealin;

her true a t t i t u d e .

I f she is responding Fn a

d i f f e r e n t mode, however, t h e interviewer's a t t r i b u t e s are less l i k e l y t o be


relevant.
Similarly, different questiorr@ wordings on the same subject matter
can invoke d i f f e r e n t nodes fran a respondent.

The r e s u l t a n t answers might

be s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t i f this .occurs, e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e questions concern

a t o p i c about which t h e respondent has thought very l i t t l e .


Our a n a l y s i s a l s o has i n p l i c a t i o n s f o r reepoaee set.

f f an individual

has a non-attitude toward a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l object, she is l i k e l y t o

f i n d agreement the eimplest way of c h n g i n g t h e subject.


more l i k e l y t o lead t o further questions while .aiareement
creatfng c l o s u r e on t h e present subject.

Disagreement i s

is a device f o r

I f the question form does not

allow for simple agreement (for example, a forced choice item), t h e respondent may a c h i e v e - t h e same goal by agreeing with the most PnnocuousPy worded
alternative.

From the standpoint of t h e interviewer, t h e answers of such

a respondent may appear inconsistent, volatile, and lacking in s t a b i l i t y .


However, they m y be q u f t e c o n s i s t e a t from the standpoint of t h e persan who

is responding t o other a s p e c t s of t h e s f t u t i s m instead of t h e content of


t h e question,

Her responses may b e c o n s i s t e n t with standards f o r entertain-

ing a stranger in her home, f o r example.

Nevertheless, such responses r e f l e c t

a non-attitude toward the object in question.


O p e n - d e d questions and probes are cXearly indicated by our argument.

To discover Eodes of thinking, one must iawoke the reasoning a respondent is


u s h g t o a r r i v e a t his conclusion.

To do t h i s , one i s b e t t e r o f f exploring

number of i s s u e s at: length r a t h e r t h a n asking a f e w questions on many

s -11

Some closed ended techniques are s t i l l q u i t e appropriate.

issues.

Our

a n a l y s i s suggeses t h e Importaace of f i l t e r questions t o make sure o b j e c t s


a r e fn a respondent's domain of relevance.

There are e x i s t i n g techniqttee t o

i d e n t i f y dimensions used i n c l a s s i f i c a t i a n t h a t may help i n invoking t h e


respondent's filing eiystem.

Varfous forms of sentence frames map be useful

in invoking a respondent's g r m x of beliefs,

The development of auch

operational measures l i e s beyond t h e scope


of
the present paper.
.
Ambivalence,
aqbivalenca.

Our model suggests a number of p o t e n t i a l sources of

W
e d i s e h g u i s h ambivalence from confusion and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n .

Ambivalence r e i e r e t o c o n f l i c t i n g valences toward a p o l i t i c a l object r a t h e r


lack

06

than t o miclarity i n its meaning.


h

Our model suggests four sources of ambivalence:

1. Ambivalence r e s u l t i n g from multiple c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n the filing


system.

In our 'model, t h e granslar of :belief s is qrganized around the cate-

g o r i e s one uses i n the f i l i n g systun.

Each category invokes a d i f f e r e n t a e t

of b e l i e f s from t h e peroon'a grammar.

While we would expect t h e set of b e l i e f s

organized arbund a s i n g l e category t o b e reasonably consf s t e n t , there is much

less r e a s o n ' t o expect t h a t s e t s of b e l i e f s organized around d i f f e r e n t categ o r i e s w i l l be free of contradictiona.

T h $ s , d t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of o b j e c t s
n

produces a high likelihood of invobdng some contradictory response tendenciee.

2.

Ambivalence r e s u l t i n g from disagreements among surrogates.

I f one

relies heavily on surrogates t o mediate one's a t t i t u d e s toward p o l i t i c a l


objects, it is not u n l i k e l y that one will f i n d 'them i n disagreement on aome
issues.
3,

Ambivalence r e s u l t i n g from contradictions between surrogates and

one's granrmar of b e l i e f s ,

One may have a.set of b e l i e f s that l e a d s t o one

set of conclusions about a p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t but find t h a t t h e surrogates one


normally uses hold a d i f f e r e n t view.

4.

Ambivalence r e s u l t i n g from using d i f f e r e n t modes.

It: is possible

t h a t individuals will n o t r e s t r i c t themselves t o a single mode on an Issue

but will use more than one.

They may f i n d t h a t t h e d i c t a t e s of s o l i d a r i t y

c o n f l i c t with t h e i r b e l i e f s about how. t o achieve desired c o l l e c t i v e goods,


f o r exanple.

Contradictory response tendencies from using d i f f e r e n t modes

i s an a d d i t i o n a l source of ambivalence.
Given these multiple source8 of ambivalence, i t seems useful t o us t o
a a s m e t h a t ambivalence will b e t y p i c a l of most people's a t t i t u d e s toward
most o b j e c t s r a t h e r fhan exceptional.

~ e s e a r c hs t r a t e g i e s based on t h i s

assumption orill look somewhat d i f f e r e n t from conventional research s t r a t e g i e s .

Grounding t h e Modes in S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e .

W
e Zlave l e f t unanswered such

questions a s how people acquire t h e p a r t i c d a r mode vector t h a t they employ,


how t h e use of modes is r e l a t e d t o socio-economic s t a t u s and education, and

W e have some guesses about these

numerous o t h e r v a l i d empirical questions.

but they need t o be c l e a r l y distinguished from hypotheses derived from our


argument.

As an exauqle of how one might approach such a problem empirically, we


w i l l take up the Pseue of whether people who r e l y on an ideological mode have
a ''larger" domain of relevance than others.

F i r s t , i f one asks the question

i n terms of public o b j e c t s r a t h e r than p o l f e i c a l objects, i t ' s not c l e a r


t h a t size is a very meaningful question.

A more meaningful question t o ask

is which o b j e c t s are included. One might ask, f o r

elramgle,

how much of the

f r o n t page of t h e Hew York T h e 6 is t y p i c a l l y hcluded.

We expect t h e t most news assemblers9 r e l y heavily on an ideological

mode.

Hn Judging whether given public figures or events are newsworthy, they

are likely t o ask about t h e r e l a t i ~ n s h i pof the object t o c o l l e c t i v e goods.


Bence, the domain of relevanice of these new& assemblers i s likely t o correspond t o t h a t set of news corisumers who also ernploy an ideological mode.
0th-

news aeeeroblers

union paper

-- far

example, those who e d i t a t r a d e a s s o c i a t i o n o r

-- may use a differexit mode

solidarity mode, f o r example.

io selecting what t o report

-a

Re would hypothesize a correspondence between

t h e mode used by t h e newz assemblers of a p a r t i c u l a r mediuu and t h a t used by


t h e consumers of that medium. It i s important t o recognize t h a t not a l l

public nedia r e f l e c t t h e mode used by t h e news e d i t o r s of t h e New York Times.


Conclusion
S c h m n and Johnson (1976) have r e c e n t l y provided a comprehensive review
of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g a t t i t u d e s t o behavior.

In it, they diecuss a t some

length the classic study by LaPiere (1934) i n which motel p r o p r i e t o r s


accommodated a Chinese couple even though earlier, in answer t o ao inquiry,

they had refused t o accept a reserz.atiom.

Their closing stztement s t a n d s

equally w e l l as our conclusion:


"Leaving a s i d e a l l t h e methodolsgical points touched on in e a r l i e r

pages, the result s t i l l puzzles us.

Did the p r o p r i e t o r s p i c t u r e Chinese

only a s l a b o r e r s in p i g t a i l s and e o s l i s hats, a d not even recognize t h e


couple before them as Chinese?

Perhaps for some t h e word "Chinese" was l i k e

r ' W a l l o c i a n s , ' ~ . . . ~ r e l ya strange-sounding term on which t o casually project


a n t i p a t h i e s , but q u i t e divorced froto, real people.

O r perhaps p r o p r i e t o r s

acted, as often suggested, f n terns of an overriding b e l i e f t h a t the less

disturbance t h e better.
questions?

How shall we find the answers t o these and other

One good way, not perfect by any means but among the best avail-

able, i s t o ask, and then t o listen as well as we cafl for each p r o p r i e t o r ' s

personal d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n .

I f w e sttempt t o do this with a

concern not merely c l % a f c a l , but: with the goal of representhg a meaningful


population of proprietors, of p r o c e e d i n g ' s y s t ~ t f c a f l yss as t o avoid bias

i n our h q u ity, and of gathering infomatdon

ilz

a form t h a t can b e i n t e r -

nally analysed and conneceed t o such socia%categories as age and sex, then
we have reinvei~cedthe attitude survey In fts richest form."
It

***

These rmarka suggest t k t standard artitude measuraent

represents perhaps t h e , l e a s t interesting contribution


of modern attieudinaP survey research.

Simple pro-con dimensions, even i f

expanded t o include mcas-arenest of j-ntensity, c e n t r a l i t y , o r extremity,' only

begin t o tap the potential worth of the suxvey interview.

Its deeper value

l i e e in i t s capacity t o explore t h e ideas, S e l i e f s , values, c o n f l i c t s , and

especially frames of reference of l a r g e and important: populations.

When t h i s

is done, particularly in an open-eyed and open-ended aey, the goal, and

occasionally the outcome, is not the prediction of human behavior, but rather
a fuller understanding of persons who ake not only objects to be observed,

but also themselves m i n d s trying t o graep the s-lgnificance of the human scene
i n which they perform."

Chart 1.

The h'ature of' a Mode

Object discussed in the mass med


1

.inattentian

attention

domain of
relevance

non-aes W

at ion

asaimihation

=
non-attitude

disorientation

non-attitude

orientatfc;n

gramaa: of
beliefa

Chart 2
S-ry

A, Personal

of the Three Biodes

Objects that
affect personal

Experience

I Clssses of

life

O'bjects that

aff ece identification groups.

B, Solidarity

Beliefs about
personal conduct
In interper son91
situations

fnterperaonal
sltll~~tiozls

I classes of
I soups

Beliefs about
intergroup
relations
I

C. Ideology

Objects that
affect
collective
goods.

Classes a
effecta on
co1lect;bve
goods

Beliefs relating
classes of
objects go
collective goods.

The Expanded Model


. .

. .

Qbject discussed in the .maso.media


a

,attent ion

inattention

'dQmaikl of

relevance

asshllation

non-assimilation

f i l i n g srysta

uon-at titud

C I I
ma-att itud

orientation

surrogates

Chart 4
Expanded Summsry af the Three Mbdes
I

Beliefs about

cstjlon groups.
Objects that
C.

Ideology

affect
collective
goods

Classes of
effect~lom
collective
goods

Beliefs relating
chases of
objects to
collective goods

Shared
beliefa about
collective

goods

1, This paper is j o i n t l y authored.

Since we have co-authored other work

previously, we have chosen t o r o t a t e the order i n which our names appear

this time.
2.

Ann Arbor News, A p r i l 1 7 , 1975.

3.

'Chis i s a good point t o acknowledge o u r . g e n e r a l intellectual debt t o two


paper8 by Cartverse (1964, 1970).

We see t h e present work as a f u r t h e r

elucidation of t h e nature of belief systems;, a task which he began in


these essays.

4. Molotch and Lester (1974) have an extremely u s e f u l formulation of the


s o c i a l proceesee.

They distinguish among "new8 promoters

- those indi-

viduals and t h e i r aswcjlates (e.g. Nixon, Nixon's secretary; Kuastler,


Kuastler 's spokeeman; a man-who-saw-a-f l y i n g saucer) who ident if y (and
thus render observable) an occurrence a s s p e c i a l , on same ground,. f o r some

l~eason,.f o r others....

new8 asaernblers (newsmen, e d i t o r s , and tewrltemen)

1
who, working frm m a t e r i a l s provided by t h e promoters, transform a per-

ceived f i n i t e set of promoted occurrences i n t o public events through publ i c a t i o n o r broadcast..

.. [and] news consumers

(e, g.,

readers) who.. .attend

t o c e r t a i n occurrence8 made available as resources by t h e medla and thereby

create i n t h e i r own minds a sense of public time."

W e a r e concerned in

t h i s paper with t h e processes employed by news consumers.


5.

W
e were tempted t o call t h i s p a r t of a mode a "belief system" but feared
that t h i s term seemed as inclusive as "mode."

Furthennore, s system" may

be misleading because w e wish t o leave a s an empirical question j u s t how

c l o s e l y Integrated are t h e eleraente of any p a r t i c u l a r grammar of beliefs.

r.

6.

I n t h e i n t e r e s t s of promoting non-sexist language, w e w i l l a r b i t r a r i l y


a l t e r n a t e t h e gender of our pronouns

where convenient,

The economlstcs' concept of c o l l e c t i v e goads has found its way I n t o soci-

ology and p o l i t i c a l science mainly through the tremendous influence of


Mancur Olson's The Logic of Collective Action (1965).

Collective goods

can be thought of as desired "system states" and the two terms w i l l b e used
interchangeably.

For some purposes, it 6 8 necessary t o distinguish among

d i f f e r e n t properties of c o l l e c t i v e goods

-- in p a r t i c u l a r ,

exclusivity

Our use here focuses on t h e f i r s t of these

and non-rivalnesa of supply.

properties, defined by Olson as an a t t r i b u t e of a good "such t h a t , i f any


p&son Xi i n a armup X1..

Xi,

. . Xn conslmtee

it, i t c k t

f e a s l b l y be witlheld from t h e others in that group."


8,

The term i d e n t i f i c a t i o n group a s w e d here bears a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o

the concept of reference group as discussed by Kelley (1965) and Shibutaui

(1961).

Kcellley defirmea a normative reference group ae "a group in which

'

the indivtdual is motivated t o gain or maintain acceptance" (p. 211), and

thus one which can set standards t o which an individual f e e l s motivated


t o conform.

as:

In partL31 contrast, Shtbutani (1961) defines reference group

"any i d e n t i f i a b l e group d o s e supposed perspective

&

used by t h e

a c t o r as a frame of reference la t h e organization of h i s perceptual field"


(p. 258).

Thio l a t t e r d e f l n i t i m undenscsres the notion t h a t an identi-

f i c a t i o n group provides its adherents with a point of view on public


events.
that

if

Kelleyrs d e f t n i t i o n underscores t h e equally Important notion


t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n group is a l s o a membership group (as is often

t h e case), i t w i l l have t h e leverage t o enforce i t s perspective by


threatening t o r e j e c t po~l-conformiets.

9.

See ?blotch and Lester (1974) and discussion on p.00,

R e f ex encee

Achen, Christopher
1975 "Mass P o l i t i c a l Attitudes ancf the Survey Response," American
P o l i t i c a l Science Review 69 (December), 1218-31.
Axehod, Robert

1967 "The S t r u c t u r e of Public Opinion on Policy Issues," Public Opinion


Quarterly 31 (Spring), 51-60.

Bales,

Rekerf

f,

Brown, Steven R.
1970 "Consistency axxi the Persistence of Ideology:

Some Experimental

Reeulte, Public Opinion Quarter1234 (Spring), 60-68.

..

Converse, P h i l i p E.

1964 "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," i n David E.


Aptar (ed.) Ideology and Discontent.

1970 "Attitudes and Non-Attitudes:

Mew York: Free Press.

Continuatton of a Dialogue," i n

Edward R. Tufte (ed.) The Quantitative Analy-w.


I

Reading, hss.:.Addiaou-Wesley,
Kelley, George

Kelley, Harold

1965 "Two Bunctlnns of Reference qroups," i n Proshensky,


B.

(ed.) Basic Studies i n S o c i a l Psychology.

Rinehart and Winston.

8 . and Seidenberg,

New York:

Holt,

hum, Robert
1973 "Patterns of P o l i t i c a l Belief," i n J e a d M. Knutson (ed.) Handbook
of P o l i t i c a l Psychol.ogy.

Jossey-Baes,

1973.

LaPiere, R. T.

1934 "Attitudes va. Actions," Social Forces 13 (

), 230-37.

Levine, Robert A,

1971 "The S i l e n t Majority:

Neither Simple nor simple-Minded," Public

Opinion Quarterly 35 (

), 571.77.

Luttbeg, Nonnan R.

1968 "The Structure of Beliefs among Leaders and t h e Public," Public


Opinion Quarterl~
32 (Pall), 398-409.

Molotch, Harvey and klarilyn Lester


1974 "News as Purposive ~ e h a v l o r , " American Sociological ~ & i e w 39
(February), 101-12.

Olson, Mancur, Jr.


1965 The Logic of CoUecOive Action'. Cambridge, Hass. : Barvard University
Press.

Pierce, 3ohn C. and Douglas D. Rose


1974 "Nonattitudes m.dl Auiericrvn Public Opinion: 'Ifhe Examination of a

Thesis," American Polf t i c a l Science Reviewv 68 (June) 626-66.

Poaper, Gerald M.
1972 "From Confusion t o Clarity:

Issues and American Votete, 1956-68,"

American Political Science R e v i e w 66 (June) 415-28.


Roeenberg, Milton, e t a l .
1960 Attitude Organization and Change.

New Haven:

Yale University Press.

i
e,

Schrrrman, Howard and Michael P, Johnson

1976 "Attitudes and Bebavior ," ic A l e x Inkeles (ed.) Annual Review of


Sociology: 1976

Shibutani, Tomatsu

1961 Socfety and Bersonalltp. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.:

Prentice-Hall,