Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impersonal influence: Effects of representations of public opinion on political attitudes

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many phenomena of interest to political scientists involve what may be termed “impersonal influence”; that is, influence that derives from individuals' perceptions of others' attitudes, beliefs, or experiences. “Others” in this case refers not to the close friends and acquaintances that concerned the authors of classics such asThe People's Choice andPersonal Influence, but rather to the anonymous “others” outside an individual's realm of personal contacts. Modern mass media facilitate the influence of anonymous others by devoting considerable time and attention to portraying trends in mass opinion. This study explores the rationale for theories of impersonal influence, synthesizing existing research findings falling under this general theoretical framework, and investigating its psychological underpinnings using experiments embedded in representative surveys.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramowitz, A. I. (1987). Candidate choice before the convention.Political Behavior 9: 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Paolino, P., and Rohde, D. W. (1990), “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Aldrich, J. H. (1980).Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allard, W. (1941). A test of propaganda values in public opinion surveys.Social Forces 20: 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 133–176. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (ed.),Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, C. K. (1969). The impact of political poll reports on candidate and issue preferences.Journalism Quarterly 46: 515–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axsom, D., Yates, S. M., and Chaiken, S. (1985). Extending the heuristic model of persuasion: The effect of audience response, involvement and need for cognition on opinion change. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (1988).Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. B., McCombs, M. E., and McLeod, J. M. (1975). The development of political cognitions. In S. H. Chaffee (ed.),Political Communication: Issues and Strategies for Research. pp. 21–63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, L. (1972).Silent Politics: Polls and the Awareness of Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H. E., and Johnston, R. (1987). What's the primary message: Horse race or issue journalism? In G. R. Orren and N. W. Polsby (eds.),Media and Momentum. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broh, C. A. (1977). Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the polls in the 1976 presidential election.Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 514–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein, E., and Vinokur, A. (1975). What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11: 412–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein, E. and Sentis, K. (1981). Attitude polarization in groups. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom and T. C. Brock (eds.),Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein, E. Vinokur, A., and Trope, Y. (1973). Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology 9: 236–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1968). On the possibility of experimenting with the “bandwagon” effect. In H. H. Hyman and E. Singer (eds.),Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., and Kain, E. L. (1982). Jumping on the bandwagon with the underdog: The impact of attitude polls on polling behavior.Public Opinion Quarterly 46: 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaffee, S. H., and Mutz, D. C. (1988). Comparing mass and interpersonal communication data. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann and S. Pingree (eds.),Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Hermann (eds.),Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., and Petty, R. E. (1981). Anticipatory opinion effects. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom and T. C. Brock (eds.),Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Mutz, D. C., Price, V., and Gunther, A. C. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects.Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfield, R. S. (1955). Conformity and character.American Psychologist 10: 191–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, W. P. (1983). The third person effect in communication.Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, M. X. (1984). Scooping the voters?: The consequences of the networks' early call of the 1980 presidential race.Journal of Politics 46: 866–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and information social influence upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61: 402–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuBois, P. L. (1983). Election night projections and voter turnout in the west.American Politics Quarterly 11: 349–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L. K., and Strom, G. (1981). Election night projections and west coast turnout.American Politics Quarterly 9: 479–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication.Psychological Review 57: 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations 7:117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleitas, D. W. (1971). Bandwagon and underdog effects in minimal information elections.American Political Science Review 65: 434–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. H. (1991). Efficient estimation in experiments.The Political Methodologist 4: 13–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D. A. (1966). Election day radio-television and western voting.Public Opinion Quarterly 30: 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, G., and Rae, S. F. (1936). Is there a bandwagon vote?Public Opinion Quarterly 4: 244–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskill, G. (1974).Polls and the Voters. New Society 4: 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geer, J. G. (1988). Assessing the representativeness of electorates in presidential primaries.American Journal of Political Science 32: 929–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geer, J. G. (1989).Nominating Presidents. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollin, A. E. (1980). Exploring the liaison between polling and the press.Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 445–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties.American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R. P., and Pingree S. (1982). Television's influence on social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, and J. Lazar (eds.),Television and Behavior, Vol. 2. Rockville, MD: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., and Pritzker, H. A. (1957). Extent of opinion change as a function of amount of change advocated.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 54: 257–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, H. H., and Singer, E. (eds.) (1968).Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. E. (1983). Election night reporting and voter turnout.American Journal of Political Science 27: 613–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., and Crete, J. (1990). Do campaigns matter? The dynamics of the 1988 Canadian election. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.

  • Kaplowitz, S. A., Fink, E. L., D'Alessio, D., and Armstrong, G. B. (1983). Anonymity, strength of attitude, and the influence of public opinion polls.Human Communication Research 10: 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. (1986). On conceptualizing media effects.Studies in Communication, Vol. I, pp. 119–141. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955).Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change.Public Opinion Quarterly 25: 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, P. J., and Rice, T. (1990). Boarding the Bush bandwagon: Political momentum in the 1988 republican prenomination campaign. Paper presented to the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April.

  • Kiesler, C. A., and Kiesler, S. B. (1969).Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R., and Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: the role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting.American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. and Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case.British Journal of Political Science 11: 129–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S. and Davis, D. (1976).The Effects of Mass Communication on Political Behavior. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, D. (1972). The effect of an overheard audience's reaction and attractiveness on opinion change.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 8: 276–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, K., and Lang. G. E. (1968).Voting and Nonvoting: Implications of Broadcast Returns Before Polls are Closed. London: Blaisdell.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPonce, J. A. (1966). An experimental method to measure the tendency to equibalance in a political system.American Political Science Review 60: 434–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrakas, P. J., Holley, J. K., and Miller, P. V. (1991). Public reactions to polling news during the 1988 presidental election campaign. In P. J. Lavrakas and J. K. Holley (eds.),Polling and Presidential Election Coverage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. (1944).The People's Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchins, A. S. (1945). Social influences on perceptions of complex drawings.Journal of Social Psychology 21: 257–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., and Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin 102: 72–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, C. (1984). Back on the bandwagon: The effect of opinion polls on public opinion.British Journal of Political Science 15: 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., and Byrnes, J. E. (1974). Another look at the agenda-setting function of the press.Communication Research 1: 131–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, N. C., and Saunders, H. W. (1949).The Polls and Public Opinion. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, H., and Crespi, I. (1970).Polls, Television and the New Politics. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelsohn, H. (1966). Election day broadcasts and terminal voting decisions.Public Opinion Quarterly 30: 212–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milavsky, J. R., Swift, A., Roper, B. W., Salant, R., and Abrams, F. (1985). Early Calls on Election Results and Exit Polls: Pros, Cons, and Constitutional Considerations.Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1976).Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G. (1982).The Power of Minorities. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence.International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1: 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (1992). Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience.American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.

  • Navazio, R. (1977). An experimental approach to bandwagon research.Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R., and Ross, L. (1980).Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974).The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion.Journal of Communication 34: 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrander, B. (1991). Patterns of voting in the Super Tuesday primaries: Momentum and ideology. Paper presented to the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, March.

  • Patterson, T. E. (1980).The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., and Caciopppo, J. T. (1981).Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1915–1926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, T., Sniderman, P. M., and Tetlock, P. E. (1989). Analysis of the dynamics of political reasoning: A general-purpose computer-assisted methodology. In J.A. Stimson (ed.),Political Analysis, Vol. I, pp. 99–120. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, V. (1989). Social identification and public opinion: Effects of communicating group conflict.Public Opinion Quarterly 53: 197–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesman, D., Glazer, N., and Denney, R. (1953).The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. J., and Sheehan, M. A. (1983).Over the Wire and On TV. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. J., and Clancey, M. (1985). Teflon politics. in M. J. Robinson and A. Ranney (eds.),The Mass Media in Campaign '84. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll, C. W., and Cantril, A. H. (1980).Polls: Their Use and Misuse in Politics. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G. and Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of attribution processes in conformity and dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation.American Psychologist 31: 148–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanks, J. M., Miller, W. E., Brady, H. E. and Palmquist, B. L. (1985). Viability, electability, and presidential preference: Initial results from the 1984 NES continuous monitoring design. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M. and Nebergall, R. E. (1965).Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social-Judgment Involvement Approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibutani, T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives.American Journal of Sociology 60: 562–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S. (1986). Do exit polls influence voting behavior?Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 331–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teer, F., and Spence, J. D. (1973).Political Opinion Polls. London: Hutchinson and Co., pp. 131–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville, A. (1835).Democracy in America. As edited and abridged by R. D. Heffner, 1956 (New York: Mentor Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Traugott, M. W. (1990). The proliferation of media polls in campaign coverage: questions for comparative study. Paper presented to the convention of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.

  • Tuchman, S. and Coffin, T. E. (1971). The influence of election night television broadcasts in a close election.Public Opinion Quarterly 35: 315–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. F., and Martin, E. (1983).Survey Measurement of Subjective Phenomena. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1984). Assessing the risk of crime victimization: the integration of personal victimization experience and socially transmitted information.Journal of Social Issues 40: 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (1980). Impact of directly and indirectly experienced events: The origin of crime-related judgments and behaviors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. and Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 693–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, H. L. and Kaplowitz, S. A. (1977). Attitudinal conformity and anonymity.Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 226–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E. L. and Heyns, R. W. (1967).An Anatomy for Conformity. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, M. (1976).Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion. New York: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, G. M. (1975). Contextual determinants of opinion judgments: Field experimental probes of judgmental relativity boundary conditions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 1047–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, M. (1958). Certainty of judgment as a variable in conformity behavior.Journal of Social Psychology 45: 289–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. (1987). Majority and minority influence: A social impact analysis. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Hermann (eds.),Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R. and Linquiti, P. (1981). Network election day predictions and western voters.Public Opinion 3: 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist 35: 151–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement 9:1–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, and School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin, 53706, Madison, Wisconsin

    Diana C. Mutz

Authors
  1. Diana C. Mutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mutz, D.C. Impersonal influence: Effects of representations of public opinion on political attitudes. Polit Behav 14, 89–122 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992237

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992237

Keywords

Search

Navigation