Stephen C. Craig

Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study.

Political efficacy has been studied extensively since the 1950s, hut analysts have never been fully satisfied with its measurement. After considerable testing, four new questions tapping internal political efficacy were added to the 1988 National Election Study. Our investigation shows that inter-item correlations among these questions indicate high internal consistency, that by both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis the items measure a single concept distinct from external efficacy and political trust, that the measurement model is robust across major subgroups, and that the overall scale is externally valid and provides a good distribution of efficacy scores across the population. Further, the results of an order experiment in the survey suggest that responses are unaffected by mode of presentation. In short, the four new questions constitute the most satisfactory measure of internal political efficacy to date.

Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items

Political efficacy and trust—among the most frequently used survey measures of general political attitudes—are often maligned for their lack of reliability and validity. This paper reports results from the National Election Studies 1987 pilot study, which included more than thirty-five efficacy and trust items. Five attitudinal dimensions were hypothesized; four emerged clearly. One scale, internal efficacy, is especially robust; a four- to six-item scale represents a considerable improvement on existing NES measures. External efficacy is distinguished from political trust, at least when the former is measured in terms of the fairness of political procedures and outcomes rather than in terms of elite responsiveness to popular demands. Though less decisive, there also is support for dividing trust into incumbent- and regime-based components. The failure to find a similar incumbent- and regime-based distinction for external efficacy is in accord with theoretical perspectives.

Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens' Ambivalence about Gay Rights

Recent research has recognized that many people simultaneously hold positive and negative attitudes about important political issues. In this article, we review the concept of attitudinal ambivalence and propose a survey-based measure of ambivalence adapted from the experimental literature. Extending our earlier work on abortion, analysis of a statewide telephone survey of Florida residents reveals that (1) many people have ambivalent attitudes about issues related to gay and lesbian rights; (2) the amount of ambivalence varies according to the specific rights in question (military service, gay marriage and adoption, membership in youth organizations such as Boy Scouts, and others); (3) ambivalence on gay rights is to some extent a function of conflict among citizens’ underlying core values; and (4) under certain circumstances, ambivalence appears to mediate the relationship between a person’s issue preferences with regard to gay rights and his or her evaluation of political leaders and institutions.

Winners, Losers, and Election Context: Voter Responses to the 2000 Presidential Election

Elections are sometimes seen as legitimizing institutions, promoting system-level support among citizens by allowing them to have input into the political process. However, prior research has found that this is less true among supporters of losing candidates, who often exhibit lower levels of political trust and satisfaction with democracy. We analyze NES survey data from 1964 to 2004, as well as surveys from Florida and the nation following the controversial presidential election of 2000, and find that (1) losers exhibit lower levels of political trust, satisfaction with democracy, confidence that government is responsive to citizens, and in early 2001 were less inclined to extend legitimacy to the newly elected president; (2) losers also are more likely to endorse “rationalizations” as explanations of the election outcome, to be less satisfied with the choice of candidates offered in the election, and to perceive the electoral process as unfair; and (3) voter interpretations of the election mediate the relationships between winning/losing on the one hand, and trust, responsiveness, and satisfaction with democracy on the other. These findings suggest that the so-called legitimizing function of elections is far from a universal phenomenon.

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don't: Citizens' Ambivalence About Abortion

Recent research has recognized that many people simultaneously hold positive and negative attitudes about important political issues. This paper reviews the concept of attitudinal ambivalence and introduces a survey measure of ambivalence adapted from the experimental literature. An analysis of two statewide telephone surveys of Florida voters reveals that (1) a number of voters have ambivalent attitudes about abortion rights; (2) the amount of ambivalence varies according to the circumstances (elective versus traumatic) under which an abortion is obtained; (3) ambivalence about elective abortions is essentially unrelated to ambivalence about traumatic abortions; (4) voters who support abortion rights are more ambivalent about elective abortions than about traumatic abortions, whereas the pattern is reversed for abortion rights opponents; and (5) extreme views in support of or opposition to abortion rights can sometimes mitigate the amount of ambivalence felt by voters.

Broken contract? : changing relationships between Americans and their government

* Change and the American Electorate Stephen C. Craig. Attitudes * Looking at Leviathan: Dimensions of Opinion About Big Government Linda L.M. Bennett and Stephen Earl Bennett. * The Angry Voter: Politics and Popular Discontent in the 1990s S. C. Craig. * Economic Change and the Middle-Class Revolt Against the Democratic Party Ruy A. Teixeira. Involvement * The Sixth American Party System: Electoral Change, 19521992 John H. Aldrich and Richard G. Niemi. * Public Judgment and Political Engagement in the 1992 Election Randolph C. Horn and M. Margaret Conway. * Whos Talking? Whos Listening? The New Politics of Radio Talk Shows Diana Owen. * Citizens for Perot: Assessing Patterns of Alienation and Activism Lonna R. Atkeson, James A. McCann, Ronald B. Rapoport, and Walter J. Stone. Groups * The Gender Gap: A Manifestation of Womens Dissatisfaction with the American Polity? Janet Clark and Cal Clark. * The Religious Vote in American Politics: Value Conflict, Continuity, and Change Allen D. Hertzke and John David Rausch Jr. * The Social Contract in Black and White: Racial Differences in Evaluations of Government Timothy Bledsoe, Lee Sigelman, Susan Welch, and Michael W. Combs. Linkage * The Electoral Connection: Images of U.S. Senators and Representatives Glenn R. Parker and Charles J. Barrilleaux. * From Ward Heelers to Public Relations Experts: The Parties Response to Mass Politics Paul S. Herrnson, Kelly D. Patterson, and John J. Pitney Jr. * Whos the Boss? Direct Democracy and Popular Control of Government Jack Citrin.

The mobilization of political discontent

Although political discontent has risen substantially among Americans since the mid-sixties, there is considerable disagreement about the implications of this trend for individual political behavior and system performance. This paper develops a conceptual and theoretical framework within which this question can be examined. Two dimensions of political discontent, low diffuse support and external inefficacy, are hypothesized as motivations for political action when certain other conditions are met. In addition, because each of these orientations should be associated with different styles of political behavior, the mobilizing potential of political discontent may be greater than previous studies have indicated.

Issue-related learning in a gubernatorial campaign : a panel study.

This study is based on data from a three-wave telephone panel survey conducted during the 1998 governors race in Florida. The evidence suggests that a considerable amount of issue-related learning (having to do with candidate policy stands and group endorsements) took place over the course of the general election campaign, though substantial differences were observed from one issue area to the next. Further analysis indicates that learning was especially likely to occur among voters (a) who were more knowledgeable about political affairs to start with (confirming that the so-called “knowledge gap” may be exacerbated during campaigns), (b) who scored high on a measure of advertising negativity (for one candidate but not the other), and (c) who early in the campaign, read their local newspaper less frequently. Consistent with prior research, TV news appears to have done little or nothing to boost issue-based learning among the electorate.

Public Opinion and Support for Direct Democracy: a Grassroots Perspective

The use of referendums and initiatives has increased sharply over the past quarter century, both in the United States (Cronin, 1989; Waters, 1999) and in other democratic countries around the world (Butler and Ranney, 1994; Dalton, 1996; Uleri, 1996; Setala, 1999a). However, though it is clear that this phenomenon has occurred, there is little understanding or agreement as to the reasons why. A review of the literature suggests numerous possible explanations, most of which can be grouped into one of three broad and relatively distinct (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) categories.

Partisanship, Independence, and No Preference: Another Look at the Measurement of Party Identification

This study challenges the conclusion, by Miller and Wattenberg, that the decline of partisanship in the United States is due largely to the diminished saliency of our parties as instruments of democratic government. The Miller-Wattenberg argument is built on an analysis of discrepancies in the CPS measure of party identification. As the results below show, however, the traditional seven-point scale is more appropriatp than the alternative conceptualization offered by these authors for examining popular attitudes toward the parties, or toward political parties generally. Nopreference nonpartisans and self-professed Independents do indeed differ in some important respects -but their differences have less to do with the way they view the parties than with their orientation toward the symbols of partisan independence. Although the saliency hypothesis may account for the rise of no-preference nonpartisanship (relative to independence) since the late sixties, the process of party disaggregation itself cannot be so easily explained.