¹ Hess, Robert D. and Easton, David, “The Child's Changing Image of the President,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 24 (Winter, 1960), pp. 632–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² The two book-length reports of that study are Hess, Robert D. and Torney, Judith V., The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967)Google Scholar and Easton, David and Dennis, Jack, Children in the Political Svstem: Origins of Political Legitimacy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969)Google Scholar.

³ Greenstein, Fred I., “The Benevolent Leader: Children's Images of Political Authority,” American Political Science Review, 54 (12, 1960), 934–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, later expanded on in Greenstein, , Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), chapter 3Google Scholar. Also see Greenstein, Fred I., “More on Children's Images of the President,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Winter, 1961), 648–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ For references see notes 9 and 11 below.

⁵ For a recent annotated presentation of standard sources on Britain and France, see the bibliography to Rothman, Stanley, European Society and Politics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970)Google Scholar. On the United States, see McGiffert, Michael, ed., The Character of Americans, 2nd ed. (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1970)Google Scholar, which contains a useful collection of essays and valuable bibliographical references. The older national character literature is summarized in: Inkeles, Alex and Levinson, Daniel, “National Character: The Study of Modal Personality and Sociocultural Systems,” in Linzey, G. and Aronson, E., eds., Handbook of Social Psychology IV (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968), pp. 418–506 Google Scholar. On the more recent political-cultural approach see Pye, Lucian W. and Verba, Sidney, eds., Culture and Political Development (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

⁶ Kavanagh, Dennis, “The Deferential English: A Comparative Critique,” Government and Opposition, 6 (Summer, 1971), pp. 333–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The question of deference will not be discussed further in this article because it is treated extensively in Greenstein, Fred I., Herman, Valentine, Stradling, Robert N. and Zureik, Elia, “The Child's Conception of the Queen and the Prime Minister,” British Journal of Political Science, 4 (07, 1974), 257–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. After that article was in print, we discovered technical errors in the data processing that shifted the percentages by one or two points in a number of tables as well as a substantial difference in the percentages reported for white American children and French children in rows 1 and 2 of Table 9, and for black American children in rows 1 and 2 of Table 7 in this paper. All the statistics in this paper have been rechecked to eliminate any further possibility of errors and discrepancies between the two articles, due to the errors noted above in the earlier article.

⁷ Relevant sources are reviewed in Greenstein, Fred I. and Tarrow, Sidney, “The Study of French Political Socialization; Toward the Revocation of Paradox,” World Politics, 22 (10, 1969), 95–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ For a review of the literature on adult ambivalence toward political authorities in the United States, see Greenstein, Fred I., Children and Politics, pp. 27–31 Google Scholar.

⁹ See the references in notes one, two and three and the following useful anthologies: Adler, Norman and Harrington, Charles, eds., The Learning of Political Behavior (Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1970)Google Scholar; Sigel, Roberta S., ed., Learning About Politics: A Reader in Political Socialization (New York: Random House, 1970)Google Scholar; Dennis, Jack, ed., Socialization to Politics (New York: Wiley, 1973)Google Scholar; Bell, Charles G., ed., Growth and Change: A Reader in Political Socialization (Encino and Belmont, Cal.: Dickenson, 1973)Google Scholar; and Orum, Anthony, ed., The Seeds of Politics: Youth and Politics in America (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972)Google Scholar. The first and third of these works have excellent bibliographies. Recent extensive litera-ture reviews include Riccards, Michael P., The Making of the American Citizenry: An Introduction (New York: Chandler, 1973)Google Scholar; Jaros, Dean, Socialization to Politics (New York: Praeger, 1973)Google Scholar; Weissberg, Robert, Political Learning, Choice and Citizenship (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974)Google Scholar; and Sears, David O., “Political Socialization,” in The Handbook of Political Science II, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W. (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1975), pp. 93–154 Google Scholar. For a recent bibliography, see Dennis, Jack, “Political Socialization Research: A Bibliography,” Sage Professional Papers in American Politics, Vol. 1, Series No. 04-002 (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1973)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Johnson, W. Lee Jr., Letter to the Editor, American Political Science Review, 66 (12, 1972), 1317–1318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ On the question of whether the positive orientations of children studied in the late 1950s and early 1960s should in principle have been expected to predict “pro-system” behavior, see Greenstein, Fred I., “A Note on the Ambiguity of ‘Political Socialization’: Definitions, Criticisms, and Strategies of Inquiry,” Journal of Politics, 32 (11, 1970), 969–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Jaros, Dean, Hirsch, Herbert, Fleron, Frederic J. Jr., “The Malevolent Leader: Political Socialization in an American Subculture,” American Political Science Review, 62 (06, 1968), 564–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Tolley, Howard Jr., Children and War: Socialization to International Conflict (New York: Teachers College Press, 1973), pp. 129–31Google Scholar. Recently, a “multifarious leader” has been introduced into the literature by a pair of investigators who compare black and white American children with a President-worshipping sample of Amish children. Jaros, Dean and Kolson, Kenneth L., “The Multifarious Leader: Political Socialization of Amish, ‘Yanks’, Blacks,” in Niemi, Richard G. and Associates, The Politics of Future Citizens (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974), pp. 41–62 Google Scholar. For an exceptionally interesting study of the absence of conspicuous leadership, figures in post-World War II Japanese political socialization, see Massey, Joseph A., “The Missing Leader: Japanese Youths' View of Political Authority, American Political Science Review, 69 (03, 1975), 31–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ On the politicization of contemporary black children in the United States see the following recent articles: Abramson, Paul R., “Political Efficacy and Political Trust Among Black School Children: Two Explanations,” Journal of Politics, 34 (11, 1972), 1243–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orum, Anthony M. and Cohen, Roberta S., “The Development of Political Orientations Among Black and White Children,” American Sociological Review, 38 (02, 1973), 62–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Liebschutz, Sarah F. and Niemi, Richard G., “Political Attitudes Among Black Children,” in Niemi, and Associates, pp. 83–103 Google Scholar. On the context-dependence of attitudes associated with race, see Schuman, Howard and Gruenberg, Barry, “The Impact of City on Racial Attitudes,” American Journal of Sociology, 76 (09, 1970), 213–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On blacks more generally, see Glenn, Norval D. and Bonjean, Charles M., eds., Blacks in the United States (San Francisco: Chandler, 1969)Google Scholar; Parsons, Talcott and Clark, Kenneth B., eds., The Negro American (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1966)Google Scholar; Porter, Dorothy B., The Negro in the United States: A Selected Bibliography (Washington: Library of Congress, 1970)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For a classical demonstration of the extraordinarily different reasons why individuals may choose a fixed-choice alternative, see Crutchfield, Richard S. and Gordon, Donald A., “Variations in Respondents' Interpretations of an Opinion-Poll Question,” International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, 1 (1947), 1–12 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Problems of using fixed-choice items in research on children are discussed in David O. Sears' review of Hess and Torney, , The Development of Political Attitudes in Children, in Harvard Educational Review, 38 (Summer, 1968), 571–78Google Scholar. Also see Greenstein's, Fred I. review of Easton and Dennis, , Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy, in Political Science Quarterly, 87 (03, 1972), 98–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Greenstein, Fred I. and Tarrow, Sidney, “Political Orientations of Children: The Use of a Semi-Projective Technique in Three Nations,” Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics, Vol. 1, Series No. 01-009 (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970)Google Scholar. For a somewhat overstated but interesting critique of the use of questionnaires in general, see Marsh, David, “Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questionned,” British Journal of Political Science, 1 (04, 1971), 453–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Another line of critical discussion of political socialization studies is presented in Searing, Donald D., Schwartz, Joel J., and Lind, Alden E., “The Structuring Principle: Political Socialization and Belief Systems,” American Political Science Review, 67 (06, 1973), 415–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also two extensive rejoinders to this essay in the American Political Science Review, 68 (06, 1974), 720–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ The object of the critiques was the following article: Dennis, Jack, Lindberg, Leon, and Mc-Crone, Donald, “Support for Nation and Government Among English Children,” British Journal of Political Science, 1 (04, 1971), 25–48 Google Scholar. The critiques: March, “Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questioned”; Birch, A. H., “Children's Attitudes and British Politics,” British Journal of Political Science, 1 (10, 1971), 519–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Budge, Ian, “Support for Nation and Government Among English Children: A Comment,” British Journal of Political Science, 1 (07 1971), 389–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marsh, David, “Beliefs About Democracy Among English Adolescents: What Significance Are They?” British Journal of Political Science, 2 (04, 1972), 255–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Greenstein, “More Children's Images of the President.”

¹⁹ Connell, on the basis of his own open-ended interviews with Australian children, questions whether the pre-adult assertions I treated as exhibiting benevolence do not have a “cognitive … rather than emotional … basis.“ Connell, R. W., The Child's Construction of Politics (Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press, 1971)Google Scholar. As will be seen, the present analysis examines this possibility in detail. A far more complex question, which I will not attempt to deal with here, is whether the clearly demarcated gulf between fact and value in the purer varieties of analytic philosophy approximates the empirical processes of human thought, perception, feeling, judgment, and anticipation of action.

²⁰ Converse, Philip E., “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue,” in The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, Edward R. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970), pp. 168–89Google Scholar.

²¹ See, for example, Repass, David E., “Issue Salience and Party Choice,” American Political Science Review, 65 (06, 1971), 389–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Pomper, Gerald M., “From Confusion to Clarity: Issues and American Voters, 1956–1968,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), 415–28, 450–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Campbell, Donald T. and Fiske, Donald W., “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, 56 (03, 1959), 81–105 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. For a recent contribution to the literature perfecting the psychometrics of this approach, see Kalleberg, Arne L. and Kluegel, James R., “Analysis of Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix: Some Limitations and an Alternative,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (02, 1975), 1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The term “triangulation” is first used in Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D., and Sechrest, Lee, Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961)Google Scholar.

²³ The verbatim response content makes clear that most children ignore the hypothetical foreign child and treat the item as a simple request for cognitive information. A few French children were explicitly suspicious of the foreign child and describe the precautions they would take in discussing politics with a stranger; a few English children cast themselves as tour guides, exhibiting Buckingham Palace to the young foreigner. In no case did the foreign child stimulus invoke nationalistic idealizations of domestic leaders or institutions. For a text of the interview schedule, see Greenstein, and Tarrow, , “Political Orientations of Children: The Use of a Semi-Projective Technique in Three Nations,” pp. 535–49Google Scholar

²⁴ Semi-projective procedures do not elicit the same levels of psychological orientation from each individual. In some interviews, responses are patterned by underlying personality organization, but in others, responses are rather ephemeral and seem to be stimulated either by recent learning experiences such as class-room exercises, or even by stimuli contained in the interview itself. For this reason responses to story-completion items should be viewed more as patterns within populations than as stable properties of individual respondents. For a fuller discussion, see Greenstein, and Tarrow, , “Political Orientations of Children: The Use of a Semi-Projective Technique in Three Nations,” pp. 510–13Google Scholar.

²⁵ Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York: Wiley, 1970)Google Scholar. Not only are variables imperfectly comparable across cultures, but there are important problems of their contextual meaning when associated with other constellations of factors in different cultures. Compare Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), especially p. 23 Google Scholar.

²⁶ Greenstein, Fred I., “The Psychological Functions of the Presidency for Citizens,” in The American Presidency: Vital Center, ed. Cornwall, Elmer Jr. (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1966)Google Scholar and, in somewhat different form, as “The Best Known American,” Transaction, 4 (11, 1966), 12–17 Google Scholar. For a recent attempt to describe and explain the ebb and flow of presidential popularity, see Mueller, John E., War, Presidents and Public Opinion (New York: Wiley, 1973)Google Scholar. For a 1970s review, see Greenstein, Fred I., “What the President Means to Americans: Presidential Choice Between Elections,” in Choosing the President, ed. Barber, James David (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), pp. 121–47Google Scholar.

²⁷ The survey findings are presented in Greenstein, “What the President Means to Americans: Presidential Choice Between Elections.”

²⁸ Easton, and Dennis, , Children and the Political System, pp. 114–21Google Scholar, present fixed-choice data suggesting that older children attribute greater importance to Congress than to the President. Open-ended data on children's perceptions of the President and Congress from the present study, however, leave the impression that while this may be a typical verbal convention learned by older children, even the oldest respondents in the present study knew very little about Congress, much less about their own congressman, and were far more attentive to and psychologically stirred by the President. On the simple matter of awareness of the President versus legislators and the legislature, see Table 1 of this article. Adult verbalizations about the relative importance of President and Congress are summarized in Devine, Donald J., The Political Culture of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972), pp. 155–63Google Scholar. Like older children, adults talk about the primacy of Congress, but are more likely to structure their political perceptions and affect around the President.

²⁹ See note 26.

³⁰ Greenstein, , Children and Politics, p. 63n Google Scholar.

³¹ Roig, C. and Billon-Grand, F., La socialisation politique des enfants (Paris: Cahiers de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques 163, Armand Colin, 1968)Google Scholar. For a summary in English of the findings of Roig and Billon-Grand, see Greenstein and Tarrow, “The Study of French Political Socialization.” On the orientations of French adults to de Gaulle and the French presidency as manifested in the General, see Institut français d'opinion publique, Les français et de Gaulle (Plon, 1971)Google Scholar.

³² See Greenstein et al., “The Child's Conception of the Queen and the Prime Minister.” On monarchy generally, see Abramson, Paul and Inglehart, Ronald, “The Development of Systemic Support in Four Western Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies, 2 (01, 1969), 419–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Parodi, Jean-Luc, “Sur deux courbes de popularité,” Revue française de science politique, 21 (02, 1971), 129–214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Sigel, Roberta S., “Image of a President: Some Insights into Political Views of School Children,” American Political Science Review, 62 (03, 1968), 216–26Google Scholar.

³⁵ The coding criteria and coded open-ended findings for my 1958 study are reported in Greenstein, Fred I., “Children's Political Perspectives,” 1959, doctoral dissertation, Yale University (Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms)Google Scholar. Some open-ended political imagery findings were published in Greenstein, “More Children's Images of the President.”

³⁶ See Greenstein et al., “The Child's Conception of the Queen and the Prime Minister.”

³⁷ Annick Percheron also distinguishes in her presentation between references to gouverner and commander. See her, “La conception d'authorité chez les enfants français,” Revue français de science politique, 21 (02, 1971), 103–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see her L'univers politique des enfants (Paris: Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Armand Colin, 1974)Google Scholar and “Political Vocabulary and Ideological Proximity in French Children,” in Socialization to Politics, ed. Dennis, Jack, pp. 211–30Google Scholar.

³⁸ For a full exposition of how English children perceive the Queen and the Prime Minister, see Greenstein et al., “The Child's Conception of the Queen and the Prime Minister.

³⁹ Percheron, , “La conception d'authorité” especially pp. 110–19Google Scholar. It will be remembered that 39 of the 106 French respondents in the present study were interviewed during the de Gaulle presidency. One of Roig and Billon-Grand's respondents made a point of referring to de Gaulle's grand nez, but Roig and Billon-Grand (La socialisation politique des enfants) do not appear to have elicited a great deal of personal imagery. On the lack of “personalism” in the image de Gaulle sought to convey, see Stanley, and Hoffman, Inge, “The Will to Grandeur: de Gaulle as Political Artist,” in Philosophers and Kings: Studies in Leadership, ed. Rustow, Dankwart A. (New York: Braziller, 1970), pp. 248–315 Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ In a small sample of sixth-grade Australian children studied by Connell in 1968, there was somewhat greater awareness of the President of the United States than of the Prime Minister of Australia! Connell, , The Child's Construction of Politics, p. 125 Google Scholar. For similar findings in a Canadian study, see Pammett, Jon H., “The Development of Political Orientations in Canadian School Children,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 4 (03, 1971), 132–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Exclusion of this variant does indeed establish that American children exhibit more affect toward the President than toward members of Congress. For a description of the differentiated positive-affect categories, see Figure 2 of Greenstein, Fred I., “Children's Images of Political Leaders in Three Democracies: The Benevolent Leader Revisited” (Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms)Google Scholar, presented at the 1973 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

⁴² When considering either the aggregate or the explicit positive-affect category, it should be remembered that we are dealing with spontaneous manifestations of affect in response to an item that simply asks for a description of the role. An explicitly evaluative question might produce a greater proportion of evaluative responses, but at the risk that some responses might stem from the stimulus of being questioned than from previously formed views and assumptions. If the incumbent rather than the role were made salient, there would probably be more negative evaluations, even if the leader was reasonably popular, and especially if surveying were close enough to elections to tap partisanship.

⁴³ See notes 31 and 37.

⁴⁴ The black respondents were drawn from two Connecticut communities: a New Haven suburb that has become increasingly black in recent years and the small industrial/college town of Middletown. Neither of these communities showed an absence of black consciousness in 1970, but neither community was in the vanguard of black militancy or alienation. On the situational determinants of blacks' political orientations, see Schuman and Gruenberg, “The Impact of City on Racial Attitudes.”

⁴⁵ To the degree that these were the same children. Political idealization was more common among children of lower socioeconomic status in my 1958 study (Children and Politics, chapter 5). But college student protest was more common among students of upper SES backgrounds, especially before protest behavior became widely diffused in the late 1960s.

⁴⁶ The failure of attitudes to predict behavior is a common theme in the social psychological field of attitude studies. Recently, however, there has been a shift in emphasis from studies and literature reviews pointing to the lack of connection between measured attitudes and subsequent behavior to analyses such as Schuman's that refer to the real-world situations in which individual and collective action occurs that typically force individuals “to reconcile two or more conflicting values.” Schuman, Howard, “Attitudes vs. Actions versus Attitudes vs. Attitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (Fall, 1972), 347–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Weinstein, Alan G., “Predicting Behavior from Attitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (Fall, 1972), 335–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Cross-tabulations between responses to the pair of items analyzed in this paper are not reported because of the small number of cases and because of the strategy indicated in note 24 of viewing the responses as properties of populations rather than of individuals. But it should be noted that individuals presenting the President “favorably” in Table 7 are not invariably the children who were coded as positive in Table 4.

⁴⁸ Black children's orientations to the police are reviewed in Sears, David O., “Political Socialization,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds. Handbook of Political Science, II, pp. 93–153 Google Scholar. For evidence that white children show more cynicism toward the President because of Watergate, but the already cynical responses of the black children remain, see Michael Lupfer and Charles Kenny, “Children's Reactions to the President: Pre- and Post-Watergate Findings,” (mimeo) delivered at the 1974 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

⁵⁰ The basic interview schedule begins with nine story-completion items set in the child's immediate environment (school, home and peer group), more than half of which were retained in the post-Watergate schedule, since they help to build rapport. Then follows the sequence of political information questions in which the foreign child seeks information, and the explicitly political story completions such as the head of state/policeman story.

⁵¹ Children know virtually nothing about the structure and practice of the Supreme Court, but instead they respond to the connotations of the two words “supreme” and “court,” usually describing a non-appellate court dealing with “important cases.” In 1969–70, one illustration sometimes given of “an important case” was the trial of a presidential assassin. Watergate and the punishment of presidents who break the law were the results of the same thought processes in 1973.

⁵² Compare the Gallup report of a June 1973 “trial heat” between Nixon and McGovern in which Nixon won—though by a plurality much less than his November 1972 election margin. American Institute of Public Opinion release, July 5, 1973.

⁵³ Arterton, F. Christopher, “The Impact of Watergate on Children's Attitudes Toward Political Authority,” Political Science Quarterly, 89 (06, 1974), 269–324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Watergate has encouraged a spate of research, not all of which had been completed by the time this article went to print. See the special issues devoted entirely to Watergate of the American Politics Quarterly, 3 (10, 1975)Google Scholar; and Communications Research, 1 (10, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Greenstein, , Children and Politics, p. 37 Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Ibid., pp. 43–52.

⁵⁶ Gallup Opinion Index, September 1973.

⁵⁷ For an extended discussion, see New Society, 30 (19 12 1974), 751–3Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Gallup Opinion Index, December 1973. Also see note 52.

⁵⁹ All of the respondents in this study were from the more commonly studied South of England.

⁶⁰ For discussions of the centrality of contingent (or “interaction”) relationships in political psychology, see the preface to the Norton Library edition of Greenstein, Fred I., Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, Inference and Conceptualization (New York: Norton, 1975)Google Scholar; the editors' introductions to essays in Greenstein, Fred I. and Lerner, Michael, eds., A Source Book for the Study of Personality and Politics (Chicago: Markham, 1968, now distributed by Humanities press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.)Google Scholar; and Greenstein, , “Personality and Politics” in Greenstein, and Polsby, , eds., Handbook of Political Science, II, 1–92 Google Scholar.