Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 247–282 | Cite as

The Structure and Dynamics of Group Politics: 1964–1992

  • Frank P. Zinni
  • Laurie A. Rhodebeck
  • Franco Mattei
Article

Abstract

In the realm of politics the relevance of groups derives from their centrality to government institutions, the policy process, and election campaigns. In addition, individuals have a predisposition to rely on cues and shortcuts when making choices and forming preferences; groups are ideal for this purpose. Groups help orient individuals to their social world by providing standards, supplying information, and defining friend and foe. If groups are central to politics and political cognition then we should find an underlying political structure within which group attitudes can be organized, and through which other political attitudes, coalitions, and behaviors can be viewed. In our analysis we apply Rabinowitz (1976) Line of Sight method for ordering object pairs consistent with the Euclidean spatial model to the complete series of group thermometer ratings from the NES Presidential Election Studies, 1964 through 1992. The resulting eight group by group matrices are subjected to a series of multidimensional scaling models to determine the underlying structure of the group spatial distances. Our findings suggest that orientations toward groups can be satisfactorily mapped into a two-dimensional space defined by partisan and affective axes. Over this 30-year period we find that attitudes toward groups have become more emotional and less partisan in nature. Interpretation of the group space is further aided by the use of ideal-point regressions that make it possible to place voters, members of the New Deal coalition, and issue publics in the space defined by group attitudes.

Keywords

Policy Process Presidential Election Political Attitude Group Matrice Government Institution 
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. Abramson, Paul, Aldrich, John, and Rohde, David (1994). Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, Robert (1972). Where the votes come from: An analysis of electoral coalitions. American Political Science Review 66: 11-20.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, Robert (1974). Communication. American Political Science Review 68: 717-720.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, Robert (1978). Communication. American Political Science Review 72: 622-624.Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod, Robert (1982). Communication. American Political Science Review 76: 394-395.Google Scholar
  6. Axelrod, Robert (1986). Communication. American Political Science Review 80: 281-284.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Black, Earl, and Black, Merle (1987). Politics and Society in the South. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Black, Earl, and Black, Merle (1992). The Vital South. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brady, Henry E., and Sniderman, Paul M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review 79: 1061-1078.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. (1989). Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chong, Dennis (1993). How people think, reason and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science 37: 867-899.Google Scholar
  14. Conover, Pamela J. (1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception and evaluation. Journal of Politics 46: 760-785.Google Scholar
  15. Conover, Pamela J. (1985). The impact of group economic interests on political evaluations. American Politics Quarterly 13: 139-166.Google Scholar
  16. Conover, Pamela J. (1988a). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science 18: 51-76.Google Scholar
  17. Conover, Pamela J. (1988b). Feminists and the gender gap. Journal of Politics 50: 985-1010.Google Scholar
  18. Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley (1981). The origins and meaning of Liberal/Conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science 25: 617-645.Google Scholar
  19. Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley (1984). Group identification, values, and the nature of political beliefs. American Politics Quarterly 12: 151-175.Google Scholar
  20. Conover, Pamela J., and Sapiro, Virginia (1993). Gender, feminist consciousness, and war. American Journal of Political Science 37: 1079-1099.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Cook, Elizabeth A. (1989). Measuring feminist consciousness. Women & Politics 9: 71-88.Google Scholar
  23. Cook, Elizabeth A. (1993). Feminist connsciousness and candidate preference among American women, 1972–88. Political Behavior 15: 227-246.Google Scholar
  24. Cook, Elizabeth A., and Wilcox, Clyde (1991). Feminism and the gender gap—A second look. Journal of Politics 53: 1111-1122.Google Scholar
  25. Dennis, Jack (1987). Groups and political behavior: Legitimation, deprivation, and competing values. Political Behavior 9: 323-343.Google Scholar
  26. Easterling, Douglas V. (1987). Political science: Using the generalized Euclidean model to study ideological shifts in the U.S. Senate. In Forrest W. Young and Robert M. Hamer (eds.), Multidimensional Scaling: History, Theory and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Edsall, Thomas B., and Edsall, Mary D. (1991). Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights and Taxes on American Politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1954). Studies in reference group behavior. Human Relations 7: 191-216.Google Scholar
  29. Erikson, Robert, Lancaster, Thomas, and Romero, David (1989). Group components of the presidential vote, 1952–1984. Journal of Politics 51: 337-346.Google Scholar
  30. Festinger, Leon (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7: 117-140.Google Scholar
  31. Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E. (1991). Social Cognition, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Hamill, Ruth, 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
  33. Jacoby, William G. (1993). A SAS macro for calculating the line-of-sight measure of interobject dissimilarity. Psychometrika 58: 511-512.Google Scholar
  34. Jelen, Ted G. (1991). Politicized group identification: The case of fundamentalism. Western Political Quarterly 44: 209-219.Google Scholar
  35. Jelen, Ted G. (1993). The political consequences of religious group attitudes. Journal of Politics 55: 178-190.Google Scholar
  36. Kagay, Michael R., and Caldeira, Gregory A. (1980). A reformed electorate? Well, at least a changed electorate, 1952–1976. In William J. Crotty (ed.), Paths to Political Reform. Lexington, KY: Heath.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Keicolt, K. Jill (1987). Group consciousness and the attribution of blame for national problems. American Politics Quarterly 15: 203-222Google Scholar
  39. Kinder, Donald R., Adams, Gordon S., and Gronke, Paul W. (1989). Economics and politics in the 1984 American presidential election. American Journal of Political Science 33: 491-515.Google Scholar
  40. Knoke, David (1976). Change and Continuity in American Politics: The Social Bases of Political Parties. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
  41. Koch, Jeffrey W. (1991). Explanations of group economic outcomes: Determinants and consequences. American Politics Quarterly 19: 211-228.Google Scholar
  42. Koch, Jeffrey W. (1993). Is group membership a prerequisite for group identification? Political Behavior 15: 49-60.Google Scholar
  43. Kuklinski, James H., Metlay, Daniel S., and Kay, W.D. (1982). Citizen knowledge and choices on the complex issue of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science 26: 615-642.Google Scholar
  44. Kuklinski, James H., Riggle, Ellen, Ottati, Victor, Schwarz, Norbert, and Wyer, Robert S., Jr. (1991). The cognitive and affective bases of political tolerance judgments. American Journal of Political Science 35: 1-27.Google Scholar
  45. Lau, Richard R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations and voting behavior. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.), Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Lau, Richard R., and Sears, David O. (1986). Social cognition and political cognition: The past, the present and the future. In Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears (eds.), Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel (1944). The People's Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.Google Scholar
  48. Levitin, Teresa E., and Miller, Warren E. (1979). Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review 73: 751-771.Google Scholar
  49. Lodge, Milton, and Steenbergen, Marco R., with Brau, Shawn (1995). The responsive voter: campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309-326.Google Scholar
  50. Marcus, George E., and Rahn, Wendy (1990). Emotions and democratic politics. In Samuel Long (ed.), Research in Micropolitics: Public Opinion, vol. 3, pp. 29-57. London: JAI Press, Ltd.Google Scholar
  51. McCloskey, Herbert, and Brill, Alida (1983). Dimensions of Tolerance. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Miller, Arthur H., Hildreth, Anne, and Simmons, Grace L. (1988). The mobilization of gender group consciousness. In Kathleen B. Jones and Anna G. Jonasdottir (eds.), The Political Interests of Gender: Developing Theory and Research with a Feminist Face. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, Arthur H., and Wlezien, Christopher (1993). The social group dynamics of partisan evaluations. Electoral Studies 12: 5-22.Google Scholar
  54. Miller, Arthur H., Wlezien, Christopher, and Hildreth, Anne (1991). A reference group theory of partisan coalitions. Journal of Politics 53: 1134-1149.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Miller, Warren E. (1988). Without Consent: Mass Elite Linkages in Presidential Politics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  57. Miller, Warren E., and Jennings, M. Kent (1986). Parties in Transition: A Longitudinal Study of Party Elites and Party Supporters. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, Warren E., and Levitin, Teresa E. (1976). Leadership and Change. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  59. Nelson, Michael (ed.) (1993). The Elections of 1992. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  60. Newcomb, Theodore (1943). Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation in a Student Community. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
  61. Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney, and Petrocik, John (1979). The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Nimmo, Dan, and Savage, Robert L. (1976). Candidates and Their Images: Concepts, Methods, and Findings. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear.Google Scholar
  63. Nisbett, Richard E., and Ross, Lee (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  64. Ottati, Victor C., and Wyer, Robert S., Jr. (1990). The cognitive mediators of political choice: Toward a comprehensive model of political information processing. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.), Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  65. Petrocik, John (1981). Party Coalitions, Realignment, and the Decline of the New Deal Party System. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Petrocik, John (1987). Realignment: New party coalitions and the nationalization of the South. Journal of Politics 49: 348-375.Google Scholar
  67. Petrocik, John, and Steeper, Frederick (1987). The political landscape in 1988. Public Opinion, September/October: 41-44.Google Scholar
  68. Pomper, Gerald M. (1975). Voter's Choice: Varieties of American Electoral Behavior. New York: Dodd, Mead.Google Scholar
  69. Pomper, Gerald (1993). The Election of 1992: Reports and Interpretations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  70. Rabinowitz, George (1975). An introduction to nonmetric multidimensional scaling. American Journal of Political Science 19: 343-390.Google Scholar
  71. Rabinowitz, George (1976). A procedure for ordering object pairs consistent with the multidimensional unfolding model. Psychometrika 41: 349-373.Google Scholar
  72. Scammon, Richard M., and Wattenberg, Ben J. (1992). The Real Majority. New York: Donald I. Fine.Google Scholar
  73. Sears, David O., Hensler, Carl P., and Speer, Leslie K. (1979). Whites' opposition to “busing”: Self-interest or symbolic politics? American Political Science Review 73: 369-384.Google Scholar
  74. Sears, David O., and McConahay, John S. (1973). The Politics of Violence: The New Urban Blacks and the Watts Riots. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  75. Sears, David O., Lau, Richard R., Tyler, Tom R., and Allen, Harris M., Jr. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review 74: 670-684.Google Scholar
  76. Sherif, Muzafer (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  77. Shingles, Richard D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation. American Political Science Review 75: 76-91.Google Scholar
  78. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Sniderman, Paul M., Hagen, Michael G., Tetlock, Philip E., and Brady, Henry E. (1986). Reasoning chains: Causal models of policy reasoning in mass publics. British Journal of Political Science 16: 405-430.Google Scholar
  80. Stanley, Harold W., Bianco, William T., and Niemi, Richard G. (1986). Partisanship and Group Support Over Time: A Multivariate Analysis. American Political Science Review 80:969-976.Google Scholar
  81. Stanley, Harold, and Niemi, Richard (1991). Partisanship and group support, 1952–1988. American Politics Quarterly 19: 189-210.Google Scholar
  82. Stanley, Harold, and Niemi, Richard (1995). The demise of the new deal coalition: Partisanship and group support, 1952–1992. In Herbert F. Weisberg (ed.), Democracy's Feast. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  83. Stokes, Donald E. (1966). Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency. American Political Science Review 60: 19-28.Google Scholar
  84. Takane, Yoshio, Young, Forrest W., and deLeeuw, Jan (1977). Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika 42: 7-67.Google Scholar
  85. Tolleson Rinehart, Sue (1992). Gender Consciousness and Politics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Trilling, Richard J. (1976). Party Image and Electoral Behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  87. Turner, John C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Henri Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Vanneman, Reeve D., and Pettigrew, Thomas F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race 13: 461-486.Google Scholar
  89. Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  90. Wattenberg, Martin (1987). The hollow realignment: Partisan change in a candidate centered era. Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 58-74.Google Scholar
  91. Wattenberg, Martin (1990a). The Decline of American Political Parties, 1962–1988. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Wattenberg, Martin (1990b). From a partisan to a candidate-centered electorate. In Anthony King (ed.), Party Coalitions in the 1980's. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  93. Wattenberg, Martin, and Miller, Arthur (1981). Decay in regional party coalitions, 1952–1980. In Seymour Martin Lipset (ed.), Party Coalitions in the 1980's. San Francisco: Institute for Comparative Studies.Google Scholar
  94. Weisberg, Herbert F., and Rusk, Jerold G. (1970). Dimensions of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 64: 1167-1185.Google Scholar
  95. Weisberg, Herbert F., Haynes, Audrey A., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1995). Social-group polarization in 1992. In Herbert F. Weisberg (ed.), Democracy's Feast. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  96. Welch, Michael R., and Leege, David C. (1991). Dual reference groups and political orientations: An examination of evangelically oriented Catholics. American Journal of Political Science 35: 28-56.Google Scholar
  97. Young, Forrest W., and Hamer, Robert M. (1987). Multidimensional Scaling: History, Theory and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  98. Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35: 151-175.Google Scholar
  99. Zajonc, Robert B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist 39: 117-123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank P. Zinni
    • 1
  • Laurie A. Rhodebeck
  • Franco Mattei
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceState University of New York–BuffaloBuffalo

Personalised recommendations