What Is Attitudinal Hypocrisy and Why Does It Matter?

  • Timothy P. Collins
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

How can attitudinal hypocrisy and the magnitudes thereof be defined, explained, and measured? After explaining the salience of attitudinal hypocrisy as a research idea, I lay out the path forward for the book’s approaches, with conceptualizations, operationalizations, and quantifications of attitudes, ideologies, and the hypocrisies that result from the collision thereof for American liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and populism. Because no previous scholarship has taken on the task with anything above pairwise or whimsical qualitative approaches, novel methods must be devised. I utilize work from attitude research paradigms to formulate a series of quasi-algorithms for the quantification of logical inconsistency in individuals’ attitudes and attitude structures, with simple standard deviation calculations as the go-to method by which hypocrisy can be computed and, ultimately, analyzed.

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

References

  1. Abelson, R. P., & Rosenberg, M. J. (1958). Symbolic psycho-logic: A model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G. (2011). A glossary of literary terms. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  3. Achterberg, P., & Houtman, D. (2009). Ideologically illogical? Why do the lower-educated Dutch display so little value coherence? Social Forces, 87(3), 1649–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adams, H. B. (1893). The life and writings of Jared Sparks: Comprising selections from his journals and correspondence (Vol. I). Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Maes, H. H. (2012). The genetic basis of political sophistication. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(1), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arceneaux, K., & Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Who wants to have a tea party? The who, what, and why of the Tea Party movement. PS Political Science and Politics, 45(4), 700–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balch, G. I. (1979). Statistical manipulation in the study of issue consistency: The gamma coefficient. Political Behavior, 1(3), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barton, A. H., & Parsons, R. W. (1977). Measuring belief system structure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bilder, M. S. (2015). Madison’s hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., & Murray, R. A. (2015). Values, inter-attitudinal structure, and attitude change Value accessibility can increase a related attitude’s resistance to change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1739–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2012). Political ideology in American politics: One, two, or none? The Forum, 10(3). doi: 10.1515/1540-8884.1526.
  15. Choma, B. L. (2008). Why are people liberal? A motivated social cognition perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole, P. A. (1995). Finding one’s way around the political compass (or why libertarianism is right-wing). Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 18(3), 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cook, K. J. (1998). A passion to punish: Abortion opponents who favor the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crano, W. D., & Lyrintzis, E. (2015). Structure and change of complex political attitudes. In J. P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & W. D. Crano (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Critcher, C. R., Huber, M., Ho, A. K., & Koleva, S. P. (2009). Political orientation and ideological inconsistencies: (Dis)comfort with value tradeoffs. Social Justice Research, 22(2), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Lange, S. L. (2007). A new winning formula? The programmatic appeal of the radical right. Party Politics, 13(4), 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Devine, C. J. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37(3), 509–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eclectablog. (2013, July 23). Michigan Senator Rick Jones demonstrates blatant hypocrisy in favor of Big Oil [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/07/michigan-senator-rick-jones-demonstrates-blatant-hypocrisy-in-favor-of-big-oil.html
  26. Ellis, C. (2012). Public ideology and political dynamics in the United States. American Politics Research, 40(2), 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2009). Symbolic ideology in the American electorate. Electoral Studies, 28(3), 388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farrand, M. (Ed.). (1911a). The records of the federal convention of 1787 (Vol. I). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Farrand, M. (Ed.). (1911b). The records of the federal convention of 1787 (Vol. II). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Federico, C. M., Deason, G., & Fisher, E. L. (2012). Ideological asymmetry in the relationship between epistemic motivation and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Federico, C. M., & Hunt, C. V. (2013). Political information, political involvement, and reliance on ideology in political evaluation. Political Behavior, 35(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Federico, C. M., Hunt, C. V., & Ergun, D. (2009). Political expertise, social worldviews, and ideology: Translating “competitive jungles” and “dangerous worlds” into ideological reality. Social Justice Research, 22, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Federico, C. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerring, J. (1997). Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 957–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Geser, H. (2009). Rising tides of ideological simplifications: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of local parties. Swiss Political Science Review, 15(2), 241–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation—The left, the right and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Griffin, D. (2013). Citizens, representatives, and the myth of the decision-making divide. Political Behavior, 35(2), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hagner, P. R., & Pierce, J. C. (1983). Levels of conceptualization and political belief consistency. Micropolitics, 2(3), 311–348.Google Scholar
  41. Hamill, R., Lodge, M., & Blake, F. (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 850–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hartman, T. K., & Weber, C. R. (2009). Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames. Political Behavior, 31(4), 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hayes, S. P., Jr. (1939). The inter-relations of political attitudes: II. Consistency in voters’ attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hernandez, R. (2010, October 16). Attacks fly at New York debate for senate candidates. The New York Times, p. A17.Google Scholar
  45. Herzon, F. D. (1980). Ideology, constraint, and public opinion: The case of lawyers. American Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hibbing, J. R. (2013). Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics. Perspectives on Politics, 11(2), 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoffman, M. K. (1971). Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of ideological consistency and inconsistency: The impact of political belief system structure on party voting and opinion patterning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  48. Holsti, O. R., & Rosenau, J. N. (1996). Liberals, populists, libertarians, and conservatives: The link between domestic and international affairs. International Political Science Review, 17(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hutson, J. H., & Rapport, L. (Eds.). (1987). Supplement to Max Farrand’s The records of the federal convention of 1787. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jacoby, W. G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 178–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). Political attitudes and complexity: Responses from a motivational perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jelen, T. G. (1990). Religious belief and attitude constraint. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(1), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jennings, M. K. (1992). Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(4), 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Johnston, C. D. (2011). The motivated formation of economic preferences. Retrieved from http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/56029/Johnston_grad.sunysb_0771E_10633.pdf?sequence=1
  56. Johnston, C. D., & Wronski, J. (2015). Personality dispositions and political preferences across hard and easy issues. Political Psychology, 36(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jones, R. P., Cox, D., & Navarro-Rivera, J. (2013). The 2013 American Values Survey: In search of libertarians in America. Retrieved from http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013.AVS_WEB.pdf
  58. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jost, J. T. (2009). “Elective affinities”: On the psychological bases of left-right differences. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003a). Exceptions that prove the rule—Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003a). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 383–393.Google Scholar
  62. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003b). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jost, J. T., Krochik, M., Gaucher, D., & Hennes, E. P. (2009). Can a psychological theory of ideological differences explain contextual variability in the contents of political attitudes? Psychological Inquiry, 20, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Judd, C. M., & Downing, J. W. (1990). Political expertise and the development of attitude consistency. Social Cognition, 8(1), 104–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Judd, C. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 99–128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Kaletsky, A. (2012, August 30). The inverted hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-elections-hypocrisy-idUSBRE87T0Z220120830
  67. Keckler, C., & Rozell, M. J. (2015). The libertarian right and the religious right. Perspectives on Political Science, 44(2), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kerlinger, F. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  69. Kesebir, P., Phillips, E., Anson, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Motyl, M. (2013, February 11). Ideological consistency across the political spectrum: Liberals are more consistent but conservatives become more consistent when coping with existential threat. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  70. Kiecolt, K. J., & Nelsen, H. M. (1988). The structuring of political attitudes among liberal and conservative Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27(1), 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Knight, K. (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: Ideological sophistication does matter. Journal of Politics, 47(3), 828–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 59–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  74. Koleva, S. P., & Rip, B. (2009). Attachment style and political ideology: A review of contradictory findings. Social Justice Research, 22, 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kurzban, R. (2010). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: Evolution and the modular mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  78. Lavine, H. G., Thomsen, C. J., & Gonzales, M. H. (1997). The development of interattitudinal consistency: The shared-consequences model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 735–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lelkes, Y., & Sniderman, P. M. (2016). The ideological asymmetry of the American party system. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 825–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lott, J. A. (2006). In defense of hypocrisy: Picking sides in the war on virtue. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.Google Scholar
  81. Lupton, R. N., Myers, W. M., & Thornton, J. R. (2015). Political sophistication and the dimensionality of elite and mass attitudes, 1980–2004. The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Luttbeg, N. R., & Gant, M. M. (1985). The failure of liberal/conservative ideology as a cognitive structure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Malka, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23, 156–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  87. Mehrabian, A. (1996). Relations among political attitudes, personality, and psychopathology assessed with new measures of libertarianism and conservatism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(4), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L., & Reisinger, W. M. (1995). Comparing citizen and elite belief systems in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Muller, J. Z. (2001). Conservatism: Historical aspects. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 2624–2628). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2013). “Not for all the tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PloS One, 8(4), e59837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Norrander, B. (1989). Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Oliver, J. E., & Rahn, W. M. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., & Togeby, L. (2010). Political parties and value consistency in public opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 530–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 609–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Pew Research Center. (2011, May 4). Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Beyond-Red-vs-Blue-The-Political-Typology.pdf
  97. Pew Research Center. (2013, June 10). Majority views NSA phone tracking as acceptable anti-terror tactic. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/
  98. Pew Research Center. (2014, June 26). Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/6-26-14-Political-Typology-release.pdf
  99. Pew Research Center. (2015, February 24). Growing support for campaign against ISIS—and possible use of U.S. ground troops. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/02/02-24-15-ISIS-release.pdf
  100. Poteat, V. P., & Mereish, E. H. (2012). (Dis)similarity between liberals and conservatives: Predicting variability in group differences on abortion and same-sex marriage rights attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Reicherter, D., Aylward, A., Student, A., & Koopman, C. (2010). The psychology of denial in the political context: The case of torture. In S. K. Ogden & A. D. Biebers (Eds.), Psychology of denial (pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  102. Rhodes, E. W. (2009, July 12). GOP shows hypocrisy toward “family values.” The Philadelphia Tribune, p. 4A.Google Scholar
  103. Rich, F. (1995, December 13). Hypocrite hit parade. The New York Times, p. A23.Google Scholar
  104. Schlichter, K. (2013, May 20). Let’s exploit liberal hypocrisy. TownHall.com. Retrieved from http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2013/05/20/lets-exploit-liberal-hypocrisy-n1598400/page/full
  105. Schuman, H. (1972). Attitudes vs. actions versus attitudes vs. attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(3), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Smith, C. T., Ratliff, K. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Rapid assimilation: Automatically integrating new information with existing beliefs. Social Cognition, 30(2), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology. Political Psychology, 32(3), 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Stark, A. (1997). Limousine liberals, welfare conservatives: On belief, interest, and inconsistency in democratic discourse. Political Theory, 25(4), 475–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stimson, J. A. (2004). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tolmie, J. (2011). Modernism, memory, and desire: Queer cultural production in Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home. TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 22, 77–95.Google Scholar
  112. Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Van Natta, D. (2002, March 23). G.O.P. says checks show Democrats’ hypocrisy. The New York Times, p. A13.Google Scholar
  114. von Hecker, U., Hahn, U., & Rollings, J. (2016). Spatial representation of coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 853–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Whitman, W. (1892). Leaves of grass. New York, NY: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  117. Wiecko, F. M., & Gau, J. M. (2008). Every life is sacred…kind of: Uncovering the sources of seemingly contradictory public attitudes toward abortion and the death penalty. The Social Science Journal, 45(4), 546–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wilson, G. D. (1973). A dynamic theory of conservatism. In G. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 257–265). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  120. Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7(4), 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wyckoff, M. L. (1980). Belief system constraint and policy voting: A test of the unidimensional consistency model. Political Behavior, 2(2), 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wyckoff, M. L. (1987a). Issues of measuring ideological sophistication: Level of conceptualization, attitudinal consistency, and attitudinal stability. Political Behavior, 9(3), 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wyckoff, M. L. (1987b). Measures of attitudinal consistency as indicators of ideological sophistication: A reliability and validity assessment. Journal of Politics, 49(1), 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zumbrunnen, J., & Gangl, A. (2008). Conflict, fusion, or coexistence? The complexity of contemporary American conservatism. Political Behavior, 30(2), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy P. Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.Political ScienceSt. Olaf CollegeNorthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations