Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T14:54:41.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Levels of Conceptualization: False Measures of Ideological Sophistication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Eric R. A. N. Smith
Eric R. A. N. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The “level of conceptualization” index, introduced by Campbell et al. (1960), is commonly used to measure ideological awareness and sophistication among the electorate. Unfortunately, the validity and reliability of the original measure were never sufficiently examined. This article examines the level of conceptualization measures of Field and Anderson (1969) and Nie, Verba and Petrocik (1976). It reaches two major conclusions: (1) the measures under examination are neither reliable nor valid measures of the level of conceptualization construct; and (2) the measures reflect the rhetoric of contemporary political discourse rather than the actual process of political evaluation. These conclusions call into doubt the validity and reliability of the original measure of The American Voter.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 685 - 696
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Broh, Anthony C. (1973). “Toward a Theory of Issue Voting.” Sage Professional Papers: American Politics Series, Vol. 1, No. 1. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. (1964). “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Apter, David (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. (1970). “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: The Continuation of a Dialogue.” In Tufte, Edward (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. (1975). “Public Opinion and Voting Behavior.” In Greenstein, Fred and Polsby, Nelson (eds.), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 4. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, pp. 75–169.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans D. (1973). “Dimensions of Political Belief Systems: ‘Levels of Conceptualization as a Variable. Some Results for USA and FRG 1968/69.” Comparative Political Studies 5: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, Frederick M., and Novick, Melvin R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Miller, Warren E. (1976). “Ideology in the 1972 Election: Myth or Reality–A Rejoinder.” American Political Science Review 70: 832–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Verba, Sidney and Petrocik, John R. (1976). The Changing American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, John C. (1970). “Party Identification and the Changing Role of Ideology in American Politics.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 14: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, John C. (1975). “The Relationship between Linkage Salience and Linkage Organization in Mass Belief Systems.” Public Opinion Quarterly 39: 102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, David E., and Wiley, James A. (1970). “The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 35: 112–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, John O., and Anderson, Ronald (1969). “Ideology in the Public's Conceptualization of the 1964 Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 33: 380–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, John E., and Gilmore, Gerald M. (1974). “A Memory Search Model of Reliability.” Sociological Methods and Research 2: 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.