Skip to main content

Issues of measuring ideological sophistication: Level of conceptualization, attitudinal consistency, and attitudinal stability

Political Behavior volume 9, pages 193–224 (1987)Cite this article

Circuit is open

Abstract

This study uses the CPS 1972–1976 election panel to examine the construct validity of three traditional measures of belief system sophistication: level of conceptualization, attitudinal consistency, and attitudinal stability. The analysis reveals that these measures tap two distinct characteristics that are virtually unrelated to one another. As expected, level of conceptualization proves to be a valid but modestly reliable indicator of ideological sophistication. However, the consistency and stability measures are found to tap a structural or configurational property of belief systems that apparently has nothing to do with ideological sophistication. These findings strongly recommend against the use of attitudinal consistency and stability measures in future studies of political sophistication. They also call for a major reappraisal of prior attitudinal consistency and stability research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

References

  • Abramson, Paul (1981). Comment on Smith.American Political Science Review 75:146–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achen, Christopher H. (1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response.American Political Science Review 69:1218–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwin, Duane F. (1985). Structural equation models in research on human development and aging. Paper delivered at a workshop cosponsored by the Human Development and Aging Review Group and the Behavioral Sciences Research Program of the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Maryland, June 11–12, 1984.

  • Andrews, Frank M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach.Public Opinion Quarterly 48:409–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, Allen H., and Parsons, Wayne R. (1977). Measuring belief system structure.Public Opinion Quarterly 41:159–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. Lance (1975).The Political Mind and the Political Environment. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. Lance (1977). The growth of knowledge in mass belief studies: an epistemological critique.American Journal of Political Science 21:465–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, George F., and Frankovic, Kathleen A. (1981). Ideological consensus and constraint among party leaders and followers in the 1978 election.Micropolitics 1:87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. (1978a). Effects of question wording and format on political attitude consistency.Public Opinion Quarterly 42:81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. (1978b). Change in the structure of American political attitudes: the nagging question of question wording.American Journal of Political Science 22:250–269.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. (1982). Racial issues and the structure of mass belief systems.Journal of Politics 44:2–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassel, Carol A. (1984). Issues in measurement: the “levels of conceptualization” index of ideological sophistication.American Journal of Political Science 28:418–429.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. in David E. Apter (ed.),Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, Philip E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue. in Edward R. Tufte (ed.),The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, Philip E. (1975). Public opinion and voting behavior. In Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.),The Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 4. London: Addison-West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, Philip E. (1980). Comment: Rejoinder to Judd and Milburn.American Sociological Review 45:644–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coveyou, Michael R., and Piereson, James (1977). Ideological perceptions and political judgment: some problems of concept and measurement.Political Methodology 4:77–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, Robert S. (1979). The SRC panel data and mass political attitudes.British Journal of Political Science 9:89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Stanley (1985). The reliability and stability of policy positions: evidence from a five-wave panel study. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1985 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

  • Field, John O., and Anderson, Ronald (1969). Ideology in the public's conceptualization of the 1964 election.Public Opinion Quarterly 33:380–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagner, Paul R., and Pierce, John C. (1982). Correlative characteristics of levels of conceptualization in the American public: 1956–1976.Journal of Politics 44:779–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamill, Ruth C., Lodge, Milton, and Blake, Frederick (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata.American Journal of Political Science 29:850–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heise, David R. (1969). Separating reliability and stability in test-retest correlations.American Sociological Review 34:93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, John E. (1983). The systematic beliefs of the mass public: estimating policy preferences with survey data.Journal of Politics 45:840–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Thomas H., and Marcus, George E. (1975). Political competence and ideological constraint.Social Science Research 4:93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, William G. (1986). Levels of conceptualization and reliance on the liberal-conservative continuum.Journal of Politics 48:423–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, Karl, and Sarbom, Dag (1984).LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Mooresville, Ind.: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, Charles M., Krosnick, Jon A., and Milburn, Michael A. (1981). Political involvement and attitude structure in the general public.American Sociological Review 46:660–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, Charles M., and Milburn, Michael A. (1980). The structure of attitude systems in the general public: comparisons of a structural equation model.American Sociological Review 45:627–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Ronald C., and Greenberg, David F. (1981)Linear Panel Analysis: Models of Quantitative Change. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, Donald R. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. In Ada W. Finifter (ed.),Political Science: The State of the Discipline. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, Kathleen (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: ideological sophistication does matter.Journal of Politics 47:828–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, Gerald H. (1986). Political science as science. In Herbert F. Weisberg (ed.),Political Science: The Science of Politics. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, Robert E. (1973). Patterns of political belief. in Jeanne N. Knutson (ed.),Handbook of Political Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, Frederick M. (1963). Elementary models for measuring change. In Chester W. Harris (ed.),Problems in Measuring Change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, Robert C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication.American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.

  • Luttbeg, Norman R. (1968). The structure of beliefs among leaders and the public.Public Opinion Quarterly 32:388–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, George, Tabb, David, and Sullivan, John L. (1974). The application of individual differences scaling to the measurement of political ideologies.American Journal of Political Science 18:405–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, Gregory B. (1979).Analyzing Panel Data. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-018. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Steven S. (1981). New methods lead to familiar results: comment on Judd and Milburn.American Sociological Review 46:670–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, Michael A., and Judd, Charles M. (1981). Interpreting new methods in attitude structure research.American Sociological Review 46:675–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Arthur H., Miller, Warren E., Raine, Alden S., and Brown, Thad A. (1976). A majority party in disarray: policy polarization in the 1972 election.American Political Science Review 70:753–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Norman H., and Rabjohn, James N. (1979). Revisiting mass belief systems revisited: political change and attitude structures.Journal of Politics 36:540–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R. (1976).The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, Norman, Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John R. (1981). Reply to Abramson and Smith.American Political Science Review 75:149–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norpoth, Helmut, and Lodge, Milton (1985). The difference between attitudes and non-attitudes in the mass public: just measurement?American Journal of Political Science 29:291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peffley, Mark A., and Hurwitz, Jon (1985). A hierarchical model of attitude constraint.American Journal of Political Science 29:871–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, John C., and Hagner, Paul R. (1982). Conceptualization and party identification: 1956–1976.American Journal of Political Science 26:377–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, John C., and Hagner, Paul R. (1983). Levels of conceptualization and political belief consistency.Micropolitics 2:311–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Eric R. A. N. (1980). The levels of conceptualization: false measures of ideological sophistication.American Political Science Review 74:685–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Eric R. A. N. (1981). Communication.American Political Science Review 75:152–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, James (1975). Belief systems: constraint, complexity and the 1972 election.American Journal of Political Science 19:393–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., and Marcus, George E. (1978). Ideological constraint in the mass public: a methodological critique and some new findings.American Journal of Political Science 22:233–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., Marcus, George E., and Feldman, Stanley (1979). The more things change, the more they stay the same: the stability of mass belief systems.American Journal of Political Science 23:176–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, David E., and Wiley, James A. (1970). The estimation of error in panel data.American Sociological Review 35:112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, Mikel L. (1980). Belief system constraint and policy voting: a test of the unidimensional consistency model.Political Behavior 2:115–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, Mikel L. (1987). Measures of attitudinal consistency as indicators of ideological sophistication: a reliability and validity assessment.Journal of Politics 49:148–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, 60115, DeKalb, IL

    Mikel L. Wyckoff

Authors
  1. Mikel L. Wyckoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This is a revised version of a paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1985, New Orleans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wyckoff, M.L. Issues of measuring ideological sophistication: Level of conceptualization, attitudinal consistency, and attitudinal stability. Polit Behav 9, 193–224 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988612

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988612

Keywords

  • Future Study
  • Construct Validity
  • Reliable Indicator
  • Belief System
  • Stability Measure