Skip to main content
Log in

Groups and political behavior: Legitimation, deprivation, and competing values

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay asks what might be most usefully studied in future analyses of the impact of groups on the voting behavior of individuals. A dimension of group analysis so far neglected concerns some value orientations that affect the relevance of group consciousness to voting or other political behavior. In particular, the legitimacy of group political action and of group politics more generally is of central importance. Connected to such evaluations is the character of group comparisons, such as in group-focused relative power deprivation. Also of relevance are competing political value constellations, especially individualism and majoritarianism. By the use of a variety of National Election Studies and Wisconsin survey data, these themes are explored empirically to show the extent of a group focus that goes beyond the usual measures of group consciousness. Relative approval of group-based pluralism is also shown to affect the patterns of relationships of major predictors of turnout. And finally, a LISREL analysis is presented that shows that a group focus is as important as a party focus in affecting the level of political alienation pertinent to voter participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aberbach, Joel, Putnam, Robert, and Rockman, Bert (1981).Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, Paul (1983).Political Attitudes in America. San Francisco: Freeman (esp. pp. 195–205).

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney (1963).The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnoson, J. Theodore, and Deaton, William D. (1986). The public's love-hate affair with PACs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Eugene, Oregon, March 20–22.

  • Bauer, Raymond A., Pool, Ithiel de Sola and Dexter, Lewis A. (1963).American Business and Public Policy. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Frank R., and Walker, Jack L. (1987). Survey research and membership in voluntary associations. Paper presented at a conference on Groups and American Politics, sponsored by the Board of Overseers of the National Elections Studies, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California, January 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, Arthur F. (1908).The Process of Government. Evanston, Ill.: Principia Press of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N. (1954).Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, Henry E., and Sniderman, Paul M. (1985). Attribute attribution: A group basis for political reasoning.American Political Science Review 75:1061–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E. (1954).The Voter Decides. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960).The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, Jack (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government.American Political Science Review 68:973–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, Pamela Johnston (1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception and evaluation.Journal of Politics 46:760–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, Pamela Johnston (1985). The impact of group economic interests on political evaluations.American Politics Quarterly 13: 139–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley (1984a). Group identification, values and the nature of political beliefs.American Politics Quarterly 12:151–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley (1984b). How people organize the political world: A schematic model.American Journal of Political Science 28:95–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, Faye J. (1982).Relative Deprivation and Working Women. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. (1956).A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. (1971).Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Jack (1966). Support for the party system by the mass public.American Political Science Review 60:600–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Jack (1975). Trends in public support for the American party system.British Journal of Political Science 5:187–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Jack (1980). Changing public support for the American party system. In William J. Crotty (ed.),Paths to Political Reform, pp. 35–66. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, Jack (1981). On being an independent partisan supporter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Cincinnati, April 15–18.

  • Dennis, Jack (1986a). Public support for the party system, 1964–1984. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 28–31.

  • Dennis, Jack (1986b). Theories of turnout: An empirical comparison of alienationist and rationalist perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 10–12.

  • Downs, Anthony (1957).An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Leon D. (1986).Political Parties in the American Mold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris (1974). The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic analysis.American Political Science Review 67:525–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, Ted Robert (1970).Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, Herbert H. (1960). Reflections on reference groups.Public Opinion Quarterly 24:383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, Herbert H., and Singer, Eleanor (eds.) (1968).Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, Karl G., and Sörbom, D. (1981).LISREL V: User's Guide. Chicago: National Educational Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, Donald R., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case.British Journal of Political Science 11:129–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, Richard R., and Sears, David O. (1986).Political Cognition. Hilldale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel (1944).The People's Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Schneider, William (1983).The Confidence Gap. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litt, Edgar (1963). Civic education, community norms and political indoctrination.American Sociological Review 28: 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott (1983a)Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott (1983b).Covariance Structure Models: An Introduction to LISREL. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClosky, Herbert (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics.American Political Science Review 58:361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClosky, Herbert, and Brill, Alida (1983).Dimensions of Tolerance. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Arthur H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–70.American Political Science Review 68:951–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Arthur H., Gurin, Patricia, Gurin, Gerald, and Malanchuk, Oksana (1981). Group consciousness and political participation.American Journal of Political Science 25:494–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, Norman J., and Elder, Shirley (1978).Interest Groups, Lobbying and Policymaking. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prothro, James, and Grigg, Charles (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement.Journal of Politics 22:276–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabato, Larry J. (1985).PAC Power. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1960).The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Tierney, John T. (1986).Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, David O. (1975). Political socialization. In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.),The Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 2. Reading Mass. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. Prakash, and Namiki, Nobuaki (1983). The public backlash against PACs.California Management Review 25:133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorauf, Frank J. (1984a).Party Politics in America. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorauf, Frank J. (1984b). Political action committees in American politics: An overview. InWhat Price PACs? New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James, and Marcus, George E. (1982).Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truman, David B. (1951).The Governmental Process. New York: Knopf. (Second edition, 1971.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, John C., Buchanan, William, Eulau, Heinz, and Ferguson, LeRoy C. (1960). American state legislators' role orientations toward pressure groups.Journal of Politics 22:203–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, John C., Eulau, Heinz, Buchanan, William, and Ferguson, LeRoy C. (1962).The Legislative System. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J. (1980).Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, Julian L., and Roper, Elmo (1950). Research on political parties and leadership,American Political Science Review 44:872–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler, L. Harmon, and Baer, Michael (1969).Lobbying: Interaction and Influence in State Legislatures. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellman, Gail L., and Sears, David O. (1971). Childhood origins of tolerance for dissent.Journal of Social Issues 27:109–136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dennis, J. Groups and political behavior: Legitimation, deprivation, and competing values. Polit Behav 9, 323–372 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988211

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988211

Keywords

Navigation