Political Behavior

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 89–122

Impersonal influence: Effects of representations of public opinion on political attitudes

  • Diana C. Mutz
Article

Abstract

Many phenomena of interest to political scientists involve what may be termed “impersonal influence”; that is, influence that derives from individuals' perceptions of others' attitudes, beliefs, or experiences. “Others” in this case refers not to the close friends and acquaintances that concerned the authors of classics such asThe People's Choice andPersonal Influence, but rather to the anonymous “others” outside an individual's realm of personal contacts. Modern mass media facilitate the influence of anonymous others by devoting considerable time and attention to portraying trends in mass opinion. This study explores the rationale for theories of impersonal influence, synthesizing existing research findings falling under this general theoretical framework, and investigating its psychological underpinnings using experiments embedded in representative surveys.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1987). Candidate choice before the convention.Political Behavior 9: 49–61.Google Scholar
  2. Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., and Rohde, D. W. (1990), “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, J. H. (1980).Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allard, W. (1941). A test of propaganda values in public opinion surveys.Social Forces 20: 206–213.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 133–176. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (ed.),Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
  7. Atkin, C. K. (1969). The impact of political poll reports on candidate and issue preferences.Journalism Quarterly 46: 515–521.Google Scholar
  8. Axsom, D., Yates, S. M., and Chaiken, S. (1985). Extending the heuristic model of persuasion: The effect of audience response, involvement and need for cognition on opinion change. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  9. Bartels, L. M. (1988).Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, L. B., McCombs, M. E., and McLeod, J. M. (1975). The development of political cognitions. In S. H. Chaffee (ed.),Political Communication: Issues and Strategies for Research. pp. 21–63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Bogart, L. (1972).Silent Politics: Polls and the Awareness of Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Brady, H. E., and Johnston, R. (1987). What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In G. R. Orren and N. W. Polsby (eds.),Media and Momentum. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  13. Broh, C. A. (1977). Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the polls in the 1976 presidential election.Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 514–529.Google Scholar
  14. Burnstein, E., and Vinokur, A. (1975). What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11: 412–426.Google Scholar
  15. Burnstein, E. and Sentis, K. (1981). Attitude polarization in groups. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom and T. C. Brock (eds.),Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Burnstein, E. Vinokur, A., and Trope, Y. (1973). Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology 9: 236–245.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, D. T. (1968). On the possibility of experimenting with the “bandwagon” effect. In H. H. Hyman and E. Singer (eds.),Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ceci, S. J., and Kain, E. L. (1982). Jumping on the bandwagon with the underdog: The impact of attitude polls on polling behavior.Public Opinion Quarterly 46: 228–242.Google Scholar
  19. Chaffee, S. H., and Mutz, D. C. (1988). Comparing mass and interpersonal communication data. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds.),Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Hermann (eds.),Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Cialdini, R. B., and Petty, R. E. (1981). Anticipatory opinion effects. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom and T. C. Brock (eds.),Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, J., Mutz, D. C., Price, V., and Gunther, A. C. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects.Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 161–173.Google Scholar
  23. Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character.American Psychologist 10: 191–198.Google Scholar
  24. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third person effect in communication.Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 1–15.Google Scholar
  25. Delli Carpini, M. X. (1984). Scooping the voters?: The consequences of the networks' early call of the 1980 presidential race.Journal of Politics 46: 866–885.Google Scholar
  26. Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and information social influence upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61: 402–410.Google Scholar
  27. DuBois, P. L. (1983). Election night projections and voter turnout in the west.American Politics Quarterly 11: 349–63.Google Scholar
  28. Epstein, L. K., and Strom, G. (1981). Election night projections and west coast turnout.American Politics Quarterly 9: 479–491.Google Scholar
  29. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication.Psychological Review 57: 271–282.Google Scholar
  30. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations 7:117–140.Google Scholar
  31. Fleitas, D. W. (1971). Bandwagon and underdog effects in minimal information elections.American Political Science Review 65: 434–438.Google Scholar
  32. Franklin, C. H. (1991). Efficient estimation in experiments.The Political Methodologist 4: 13–14.Google Scholar
  33. Fuchs, D. A. (1966). Election day radio-television and western voting.Public Opinion Quarterly 30: 226–237.Google Scholar
  34. Gallup, G., and Rae, S. F. (1936). Is there a bandwagon vote?Public Opinion Quarterly 4: 244–249.Google Scholar
  35. Gaskill, G. (1974).Polls and the Voters. New Society 4: 23–24.Google Scholar
  36. Geer, J. G. (1988). Assessing the representativeness of electorates in presidential primaries.American Journal of Political Science 32: 929–945.Google Scholar
  37. Geer, J. G. (1989).Nominating Presidents. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gollin, A. E. (1980). Exploring the liaison between polling and the press.Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 445–461.Google Scholar
  39. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties.American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  40. Hawkins, R. P., and Pingree S. (1982). Television's influence on social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.),Television and Behavior, Vol. 2. Rockville, MD: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  41. Hovland, C. I., and Pritzker, H. A. (1957). Extent of opinion change as a function of amount of change advocated.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 54: 257–261.Google Scholar
  42. Hyman, H. H., and Singer, E. (eds.) (1968).Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Jackson, J. E. (1983). Election night reporting and voter turnout.American Journal of Political Science 27: 613–635.Google Scholar
  44. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., and Crete, J. (1990). Do campaigns matter? The dynamics of the 1988 Canadian election. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplowitz, S. A., Fink, E. L., D'Alessio, D., and Armstrong, G. B. (1983). Anonymity, strength of attitude, and the influence of public opinion polls.Human Communication Research 10: 5–25.Google Scholar
  46. Katz, E. (1986). On conceptualizing media effects.Studies in Communication, Vol. I, pp. 119–141. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  47. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955).Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change.Public Opinion Quarterly 25: 57–78.Google Scholar
  49. Kenney, P. J., and Rice, T. (1990). Boarding the Bush bandwagon: Political momentum in the 1988 republican prenomination campaign. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.Google Scholar
  50. Kiesler, C. A., and Kiesler, S. B. (1969).Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  51. Kinder, D. R., and Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: the role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting.American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–527.Google Scholar
  52. Kinder, D. R. and Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case.British Journal of Political Science 11: 129–161.Google Scholar
  53. Kraus, S. and Davis, D. (1976).The Effects of Mass Communication on Political Behavior. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Landy, D. (1972). The effect of an overheard audience's reaction and attractiveness on opinion change.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 8: 276–288.Google Scholar
  55. Lang, K., and Lang. G. E. (1968).Voting and Nonvoting: Implications of Broadcast Returns Before Polls are Closed. London: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
  56. LaPonce, J. A. (1966). An experimental method to measure the tendency to equibalance in a political system.American Political Science Review 60: 434–438.Google Scholar
  57. Lavrakas, P. J., Holley, J. K., and Miller, P. V. (1991). Public reactions to polling news during the 1988 presidental election campaign. In P. J. Lavrakas and J. K. Holley (eds.),Polling and Presidential Election Coverage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. (1944).The People's Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.Google Scholar
  59. Luchins, A. S. (1945). Social influences on perceptions of complex drawings.Journal of Social Psychology 21: 257–273.Google Scholar
  60. Marks, G., and Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin 102: 72–90.Google Scholar
  61. Marsh, C. (1984). Back on the bandwagon: The effect of opinion polls on public opinion.British Journal of Political Science 15: 51–74.Google Scholar
  62. McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., and Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another look at the agenda-setting function of the press.Communication Research 1: 131–166.Google Scholar
  63. Meier, N. C., and Saunders, H. W. (1949).The Polls and Public Opinion. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  64. Mendelsohn, H., and Crespi, I. (1970).Polls, Television and the New Politics. Scranton, PA: Chandler.Google Scholar
  65. Mendelsohn, H. (1966). Election day broadcasts and terminal voting decisions.Public Opinion Quarterly 30: 212–225.Google Scholar
  66. Milavsky, J. R., Swift, A., Roper, B. W., Salant, R., and Abrams, F. (1985). Early Calls on Election Results and Exit Polls: Pros, Cons, and Constitutional Considerations.Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 1–15.Google Scholar
  67. Moscovici, S. (1976).Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. Mugny, G. (1982).The Power of Minorities. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  69. Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence.International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1: 3–24.Google Scholar
  70. Mutz, D. C. (1992). Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience.American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  71. Navazio, R. (1977). An experimental approach to bandwagon research.Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 217–225.Google Scholar
  72. Nisbett, R., and Ross, L. (1980).Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  73. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974).The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion.Journal of Communication 34: 43–51.Google Scholar
  74. Norrander, B. (1991). Patterns of voting in the Super Tuesday primaries: Momentum and ideology. Paper presented to the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, March.Google Scholar
  75. Patterson, T. E. (1980).The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  76. Petty, R. E., and Caciopppo, J. T. (1981).Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  77. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1915–1926.Google Scholar
  78. Piazza, T., Sniderman, P. M., and Tetlock, P. E. (1989). Analysis of the dynamics of political reasoning: A general-purpose computer-assisted methodology. In J.A. Stimson (ed.),Political Analysis, Vol. I, pp. 99–120. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  79. Price, V. (1989). Social identification and public opinion: Effects of communicating group conflict.Public Opinion Quarterly 53: 197–224.Google Scholar
  80. Riesman, D., Glazer, N., and Denney, R. (1953).The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Robinson, M. J., and Sheehan, M. A. (1983).Over the Wire and On TV. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  82. Robinson, M. J., and Clancey, M. (1985). Teflon politics. in M. J. Robinson and A. Ranney (eds.),The Mass Media in Campaign '84. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  83. Roll, C. W., and Cantril, A. H. (1980).Polls: Their Use and Misuse in Politics. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.Google Scholar
  84. Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G. and Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of attribution processes in conformity and dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation.American Psychologist 31: 148–157.Google Scholar
  85. Shanks, J. M., Miller, W. E., Brady, H. E. and Palmquist, B. L. (1985). Viability, electability, and presidential preference: Initial results from the 1984 NES continuous monitoring design. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  86. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M. and Nebergall, R. E. (1965).Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social-Judgment Involvement Approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  87. Shibutani, T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives.American Journal of Sociology 60: 562–569.Google Scholar
  88. Sudman, S. (1986). Do exit polls influence voting behavior?Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 331–339.Google Scholar
  89. Teer, F., and Spence, J. D. (1973).Political Opinion Polls. London: Hutchinson and Co., pp. 131–132.Google Scholar
  90. Tocqueville, A. (1835).Democracy in America. As edited and abridged by R. D. Heffner, 1956 (New York: Mentor Books).Google Scholar
  91. Traugott, M. W. (1990). The proliferation of media polls in campaign coverage: questions for comparative study. Paper presented to the convention of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  92. Tuchman, S. and Coffin, T. E. (1971). The influence of election night television broadcasts in a close election.Public Opinion Quarterly 35: 315–326.Google Scholar
  93. Turner, C. F., and Martin, E. (1983).Survey Measurement of Subjective Phenomena. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  94. Tyler, T. R. (1984). Assessing the risk of crime victimization: the integration of personal victimization experience and socially transmitted information.Journal of Social Issues 40: 27–38.Google Scholar
  95. Tyler, T. (1980). Impact of directly and indirectly experienced events: The origin of crime-related judgments and behaviors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 13–28.Google Scholar
  96. Tyler, T. R. and Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 693–708.Google Scholar
  97. Tyson, H. L. and Kaplowitz, S. A. (1977). Attitudinal conformity and anonymity.Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 226–234.Google Scholar
  98. Walker, E. L. and Heyns, R. W. (1967).An Anatomy for Conformity. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  99. Wheeler, M. (1976).Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  100. White, G. M. (1975). Contextual determinants of opinion judgments: Field experimental probes of judgmental relativity boundary conditions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 1047–1054.Google Scholar
  101. Wiener, M. (1958). Certainty of judgment as a variable in conformity behavior.Journal of Social Psychology 45: 289–297.Google Scholar
  102. Wolf, S. (1987). Majority and minority influence: A social impact analysis. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Hermann (eds.),Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  103. Wolfinger, R. and Linquiti, P. (1981). Network election day predictions and western voters.Public Opinion 3: 56–60.Google Scholar
  104. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist 35: 151–175.Google Scholar
  105. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement 9:1–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana C. Mutz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political Science, and School of Journalism and Mass CommunicationUniversity of WisconsinMadison

Personalised recommendations