IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v79y1985i04p1061-1078_23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • Brady, Henry E.
  • Sniderman, Paul M.

Abstract

This article shows that citizens can estimate what politically strategic groups—liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and blacks and whites—stand for on major issues. These attitude attributions follow from a simple calculus, a likability heuristic. This heuristic is rooted in people's likes and dislikes of political groups. Thanks to this affective calculus, many in the mass public are able to estimate who stands for what politically, notwithstanding shortfalls in information and information processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Brady, Henry E. & Sniderman, Paul M., 1985. "Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1061-1078, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:79:y:1985:i:04:p:1061-1078_23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400237301/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Logan Dancey & Paul Goren, 2010. "Party Identification, Issue Attitudes, and the Dynamics of Political Debate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 686-699, July.
    2. Julio Rotemberg, 2009. "Attitude-dependent altruism, turnout and voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 223-244, July.
    3. David L. Sallach, 2008. "Modeling Emotional Dynamics: Currency Versus Field," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(3), pages 343-365, August.
    4. Buckley, Peter J. & Cross, Adam & De Mattos, Claudio, 2015. "The principle of congruity in the analysis of international business cooperation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1048-1060.
    5. Eric S. Dickson & Kenneth Scheve, 2006. "Social Identity, Political Speech, and Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(1), pages 5-39, January.
    6. Bednar, Jenna & Jones-Rooy, Andrea & Page, Scott E., 2015. "Choosing a future based on the past: Institutions, behavior, and path dependence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 312-332.
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    8. Tsuyoshi Hatori & Hayeong Jeong & Kiyoshi Kobayashi, 2014. "Regional learning and trust formation," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough (ed.), Knowledge, Innovation and Space, chapter 8, pages 180-212, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Lee, Taeku & Schlesinger, Mark, 2001. "Signaling in Context: Elite Influence and the Dynamics of Public Support for Clinton's Health Security Act," Working Paper Series rwp01-029, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    10. Mariano Torcal & Sergio Martini & Lluis Orriols, 2018. "Deciding about the unknown: The effect of party and ideological cues on forming opinions about the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 502-523, September.
    11. Tushar Bharati, 2020. "Co-ethnic Voters and Candidate Choice by Political Parties: Evidence from India," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 20-05, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    12. Paul Froese & F. Carson Mencken, 2009. "A U.S. Holy War? The Effects of Religion on Iraq War Policy Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(1), pages 103-116, March.
    13. Arthur Lupia & Adam S. Levine & Jesse O. Menning & Gisela Sin, 2005. "Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters “Simply Ignorant?” A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in “Homer Gets a Tax Cut”," Public Economics 0510004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. T.K. Ahn & John Barry Ryan, 2015. "The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(3), pages 380-400, July.
    15. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    16. James Adams & Simon Weschle & Christopher Wlezien, 2021. "Elite Interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 101-114, January.
    17. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    18. Kevin Arceneaux & Robin Kolodny, 2009. "Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 755-770, October.
    19. Larry M. Bartels, 2016. "Failure to Converge," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 143-165, September.
    20. Zachary Elkins & Beth Simmons, 2005. "On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 598(1), pages 33-51, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:79:y:1985:i:04:p:1061-1078_23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.