Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 269–284 | Cite as

The dynamics of interpersonal attitudinal influence: Some additional evidence

  • Donald T. Cundy
Article

Abstract

The process by which one individual or group of individuals influences the attitudes of another is an important area of concern for students of political behavior. A few years ago a major political science journal published an article pointing to the salience of “perceptual accuracy” and “issue salience” in this regard. Interpersonal affective relationships were also considered but dismissed as lacking independent causal significance.

Through parallel analysis of a separate data base, along with additional insights from a social conditioning approach, this report attempts to show that affectis an important variable mediating interpersonal attitudinal influence. It does so in multiplicative interaction with measures of parental cue-giving, such as issue salience. Hence, adding affect to the statistical modelafter removing the effects of cue-giving masks the joint effects.

Keywords

Data Base Important Variable Political Science Additional Insight Science Journal 
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. Bowerman, C. E., and Kinch, J. W. Changes in family and peer orientations of children between the fourth and tenth grades.Social Forces, 1959,37, 206–211.Google Scholar
  2. Cundy, D. T.Partisanship and political attitude formation: a social learning model. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, March 1976, chaps. 4, 5, and 6.Google Scholar
  3. Cundy, D. T. Affect, cue-giving, and political attitude formation: survey evidence in support of a social conditioning interpretation.The Journal of Politics, 1979,41 (a), 75–105.Google Scholar
  4. Cundy, D. T. Self-report vs. observer perception: some additional considerations on the validity question.Political Methodology, 1979, in press (b).Google Scholar
  5. Feldman, R. A. Power distribution, integration, and conformity in small groups.American Journal of Sociology, 1973,79, 639–664.Google Scholar
  6. Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P. F.Personal influence. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  7. Lazarsfeld, P. F. et al.The people's choice (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press, 1948, p. 157.Google Scholar
  8. Newcomb, T. M.The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.Google Scholar
  9. Niemi, R. G.How family members perceive each other. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974, pp. 59–61.Google Scholar
  10. Shils, E. A., and Janowitz, M. Cohesion and disintegration in the Wermacht.Public Opinion Quarterly, 1948,12, (2), 280–315.Google Scholar
  11. Tedin, K. L. The influence of parents on the political attitudes of adolescents.American Political Science Review, 1974,68(4), 1579–1592.Google Scholar
  12. Tedin, K. L. On the reliability of reported political attitudes.American Journal of Political Science, 1976,20(1), 117–124.Google Scholar
  13. Zimbardo, P. G.Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1959. Cf. Harland, C.I. Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitudinal change.American Psychologist, 1959,14, 8–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald T. Cundy
    • 1
  1. 1.Assistant Professor of Political ScienceLouisiana State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations