Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 217–241 | Cite as

Statistical manipulation in the study of issue consistency: The gamma coefficient

  • George I. Balch
Article

Abstract

Issue consistency involves predicting a person's position on one issue from his or her position on another. Goodman and Kruskal's (1954) coefficient gamma measures the preponderance of concordant pairs among ordered pairs of cases. Its widespread use in the research literature to measure issue consistency is of doubtful value, due to conceptual, descriptive, and inferential properties of gamma. Conceptual problems include that gamma (1) predicts for pairs of persons, not from one attitude to another for the same person; (2) it predicts for a single ordering of variables, even if this is not appropriate; (3) it can be low when issue differences are small; and (4) it underestimates consistency for consensual items. Statistical problems include descriptive and inferential concerns. Gamma is hard to interpret or compare because (1) it underpredicts bidirectional association; (2) it becomes unrepresentative and volatile as ties increase, and (3) it can reach unity in various ways. Relating gamma to a sampling distribution might permit comparison of probability levels for statistical inference. The research literature has not done this. Instead, it has computed “mean gammas” of doubtful descriptive and inferential value.

Keywords

Statistical Problem Statistical Inference Research Literature Probability Level Sampling Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aberbach, J. D., and Walker, J. L.,Race in the city. Boston: Little Brown, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, K., and Thorson, S.Measuring political constraint. Unpublished ms, Polimetrics Laboratory, Ohio State University, July, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. R., and Zelditch, M., Jr.A basic course in statistics with sociological applications (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Bachrach, P., and Baratz, M. S. Decisions and nondecisions: an analytical framework.American Political Science Review 1963,47 632–642.Google Scholar
  5. Barton, A. H., and Parsons, R. W. Measuring belief system structure.Public Opinion Quarterly 1977,41 159–180.Google Scholar
  6. Bem, D. J.Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1970.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, L. W.The political mind and the political environment. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, L. W. The growth of knowledge in mass belief studies: An epistemological critique.American Journal of Political Science 1977,21 465–500.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, S. E., et al. Education and mass belief systems: An extension and some new questions.Political Behavior 1979,1 53–72.Google Scholar
  10. Bishop, G. F., et al. Change in the structure of American political attitudes: The nagging question of question wording.American Journal of Political Science 1978,22 250–269.Google Scholar
  11. Bishop, G. F., et al. Questions about question wording: A rejoinder to revisiting mass belief systems revisited.American Journal of Political Science 1979,23 187–193.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, S. R. Consistency and the persistence of ideology: Some experimental results.Public Opinion Quarterly 1970,34 60–68.Google Scholar
  13. Brunk, G. G. The 1964 attitude consistency leap reconsidered.Political Methodology 1978,5 347–360.Google Scholar
  14. Bruner, J. What's the question to the answer? measures and marginals in crosstabulation.American Journal of Political Science 1976,20 781–804.Google Scholar
  15. Buchanan, W. Nominal and ordinal bivariate statistics: The practitioner's view.American Journal of Political Science 1974,18 625–646.Google Scholar
  16. Bullock, C. S., III, and Rodgers, H. R., Jr. (Eds.).Black political attitudes. Chicago: Markham, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, A., et al.The American voter. New York: Wiley, 1960.Google Scholar
  18. Cobb, R. W., and Elder, C. D. Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972.Google Scholar
  19. Converse, P. E. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.),Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press, 1964, pp. 206–261.Google Scholar
  20. Converse, P. E. Attitudes and non-attitudes; continuation of a dialogue. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.),The quantitative analysis of social problems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1970, pp. 168–189.Google Scholar
  21. Converse, P. E. Public opinion and voting behavior. In F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby (Eds.),Handbook of political science (8 vols.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975, Vol. 4, pp. 75–169.Google Scholar
  22. Darcy, R., and Aigner, H. The uses of entropy in the multivariate analysis of categorical variables. Paper delivered at the 1977 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Eisinger, P. K. The urban crisis as a failure of community: some data. Paper prepared for the 1973 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, 1973.Google Scholar
  24. Eulau, H., and Prewitt, K. Political matrix and political representation.American Political Science Review 1969,63 427–441.Google Scholar
  25. Goodman, L. A., and Kruskal, W. H. Measures of association for cross-classifications.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1954,49, 732–764.Google Scholar
  26. Goodman, L. A., and Kruskal, W. H. Measures of association for cross-classifications, III: approximate sampling theory.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963,58, 310–364.Google Scholar
  27. Goodman, L. A., and Kruskal, W. H. Measures of association for cross-classifications, IV: simplification of asymptotic variances.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1972,67, 415–421.Google Scholar
  28. Hirsch, H.Poverty and politicization. New York: The Free Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  29. Jennings, M. K., and Zeigler, H. Political expressivism among high school teachers: The intersection of community and occupational values. In R. S. Sigel (Ed.),Learning about politics. New York: Random House, 1970.Google Scholar
  30. Kornberg, A., and Thomas, N. The political socialization of national legislative elites in the United States and Canada.Journal of Politics, 1965,27, 761–775.Google Scholar
  31. Ladd, E. C., Jr., and Hadley, C. D. Political parties and political issues: Patterns in differentiation since the New Deal. Sage Professional Papers in American Politics, 1,04-010. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1973.Google Scholar
  32. Lane, R. E. Patterns of political belief. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.),Handbook of political psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973, pp. 83–116.Google Scholar
  33. Langton, K. P. Peer group and school and the political socialization process.American Political Science Review, 1967,61, 751–758.Google Scholar
  34. Langton, K. P., and Jennings, M. K. Political socialization and the high school civics curriculum in the United States.American Political Science Review, 1968,62, 852–867.Google Scholar
  35. LeBlanc, H. L., and Merrin, M. B. Mass belief systems revisited.Journal of Politics, 1977,39, 1082–1087.Google Scholar
  36. Marcus, G., et al. The application of individual differences scaling to the measurement of political ideologies.American Journal of Political Science, 1974,18, 405–420.Google Scholar
  37. McClosky, H., et al. Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers.American Political Science Review, 1960,44, 406–427.Google Scholar
  38. Mueller, J. H. et al.Statistical reasoning in sociology (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977.Google Scholar
  39. Nie, N. H., with Andersen, K. Mass belief systems revisited: Political change and attitude structure.Journal of Politics, 1974,36, 540–587.Google Scholar
  40. Nie, N. H., and Rabjohn, J. N. Revisiting mass belief systems revisited: or, doing research is like watching a tennis match.American Journal of Political Science, 1979,23, 139–175.Google Scholar
  41. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., and Petrocik, J. R.The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  42. Pomper, G. M.Elections in America. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1968.Google Scholar
  43. Rohter, I. S. The genesis of political radicalism: The case of the radical right. In R. S. Sigel (Ed.),Learning about politics. New York: Random House, 1970.Google Scholar
  44. Rosenthal, I. Distribution of the sample version of the measure of association, gamma.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1966,61, 440–453.Google Scholar
  45. Schattschneider, E. E.The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, 1960.Google Scholar
  46. Sullivan, J. L., et al. Ideological constraint in the mass public: A methodological critique and some new findings.American Journal of Political Science, 1978,22, 233–249.Google Scholar
  47. Sullivan, J. L., et al. The more things change, the more they remain the same: rejoinder to Nie and Rabjohn.American Journal of Political Science, 1979,23, 176–186.Google Scholar
  48. Weissberg, R. Consensual attitudes and attitude structure.Public Opinion Quarterly, 1976,40, 349–359.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • George I. Balch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Chicago CircleUSA

Personalised recommendations