Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-fb4gq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T09:06:20.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justification Not by Faith Alone: Clergy Generating Trust and Certainty by Revealing Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2009

Paul A. Djupe  and
Brian R. Calfano
Paul A. Djupe*
Affiliation:
Denison University
Brian R. Calfano
Affiliation:
Missouri State University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Paul A. Djupe, Department of Political Science, Denison University, 100 South Road, Granville, OH 43023. E-mail: djupe@denison.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While our intuition is that religious elites influence the political behavior of their audiences, just how that influence takes place is essentially unknown. Among many possible mechanisms, we investigate a new one: the effects of the decision-making process information that is included in elite statements. We believe that “process cues” paralleling those preferred by respondents bolster trust in the source and augment the ability to form determined attitudes. We test this proposition in the context of a survey experiment that focuses on environmental racism. We present competing arguments provided by a reverend and a professor, variably assigning the arguments and presence of elite process cues. We find that process cues do affect trust and attitudinal ambivalence, but in ways that challenge some pervasive assumptions about the integrity and importance of religious groups in politics.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 2009 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2009

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

REFERENCES

Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Sniderman, Paul M.. 1985. “Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 79:1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, John, and Rahn, Wendy. 1998. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science 41:999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Paul R., and Gross, Kimberly. 2005. “Values, Framing, and Citizens' Thoughts about Policy Issues: Effects on Content and Quality.” Political Psychology 26:929–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman, Schlozman, and Verba, Sidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., Gardner, Wendi L., and Bernston, Gary G.. 1997. “Beyond Bipolar Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 1:3–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calfano, Brian Robert, and Djupe, Paul A.. Forthcoming. “God Talk: Religious Cues and Electoral Support.” Political Research Quarterly.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Kuklinski, James H.. 1990. “Incentives, Opportunities, and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation,” In Information and Democratic Processes, eds. Ferejohn, John. A. and Kuklinski, James H.. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74:78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly. 1980. “Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly, and Stangor, Charles. 1987. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review of Psychology 38:575–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Martha S., and Johnstone, Barbara. 2002. “Reasons for Reason-giving in a Public-Opinion Survey.” Argumentation 16:401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1993. “How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties.” American Journal of Political Science 37:867–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101:637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela J. 1988. “The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.” British Journal of Political Science 18:51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, Sue E.S., and Olson, Laura R., eds. 2001. Christian Clergy in American Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Darke, Peter R., and Ritchie, Robin J.B.. 2007. “The Defensive Consumer: Advertising, Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust.” Journal of Marketing Research 44:114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darmofal, David. 2005. “Elite Cues and Citizen Disagreement with Expert Opinion.” Political Research Quarterly 58:381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A. (2008). “Political Pluralism and the Information Search: Determinants of Group Opinionation.” Denison University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2003. The Prophetic Pulpit: Clergy, Churches, and Communities in American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. Forthcoming. The Political Influence of Church. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2008. “Politics and Church: Byproduct or Central Mission?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47:45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Gwiasda, Gregory W.. (2008). “Evangelizing the Environment: Decision Process Effects in Political Persuasion.” Denison University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Neiheisel, Jacob R.. 2008a. “Christian Right Horticulture: Grassroots Support in a Republican Primary Campaign.” Politics and Religion 1:55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Neiheisel, Jacob R.. 2008b. “Deliberation on Gay Rights and Homosexuality in Churches.” Polity 40:411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Olson, Laura R., eds. 2007. Religious Interests in Community Conflict: Beyond the Culture Wars. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., Sokhey, Anand E., and Calfano, Brian R.. 2008. “Religious Authority, Social Priming, and Support for Civil Liberties.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science AssociationChicago.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” The Journal of Politics 63:1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 47:729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckberg, D.L., and Blocker, T.J.. 1989. “Varieties of Religious Involvement and Environmental Concerns: Testing the Lynn White Thesis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28:509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckberg, D.L., and Blocker, T.J.. 1996. “Christianity, Environmentalism, and the Theoretical Problem of Fundamentalism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35:343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettema, James S. 2006. “Journalism as Reason-Giving: Deliberative Democracy, Institutional Accountability, and the News Media's Mission.” Political Communication 24:143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Response to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36:268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, Roger, and Stark, Rodney. 1992. The Churching of America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Robert Booth, Hertzke, Allen D., Olson, Laura R., and den Dulk, Kevin R.. 2004. Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices, third edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming.” The New York Times March 10, A16.Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gujarati, Damodar N. 2003. Basic Econometrics. fourth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Guth, James L., Green, John C., Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Smidt, Corwin E.. 1995. “Faith and the Environment: Religious Beliefs and Attitudes on Environmental Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 39:364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, James L., Green, John C., Smidt, Corwin E., Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Poloma, Margaret. 1997. The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Guth, James L., Kellstedt, Lyman A., Smidt, Corwin E., and Green, John C.. 1993. “Theological Perspectives and Environmentalism Among Religious Activists.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwiasda, Gregory W. 2005. “The Consequences of Ambivalent Political Attitudes.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Matsubayashi, Tetsuya. 2005. “Civic Engagement and Mass-Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in American Communities.” American Political Science Review 99:215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer. 1981. What's Fair? Americans' Attitudes toward Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1995. “Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 39:1025–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Mendez, Jeannette Morehouse, and Osborn, Tracy. 2004. “Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks.” Political Psychology 25:65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., Wilking, Jennifer R., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Narrow Data Base’: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research.” Political Behavior 29:415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sears, David O.. 1981. “Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threat to the Good Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40:414–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1996. Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Political Ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., Holbrook, Allyson L., and Visser, Penny S.. 2000. “The Impact of the Fall 1997 Debate about Global Warming on American Public Opinion.” Public Understanding of Science 9:239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L.. 1994. “On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking.” Journal of Politics 56:729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau Richard, R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45:951–971.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. Michael. 2007. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1925. The Phantom Public. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Lucas, Jeffrey W. 2003. “Theory-Testing, Generalization, and the Problem of External Validity.” Sociological Theory 21:236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88:63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, George E., Russell Neuman, W., and MacKuen, Michael. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, and Oleske, John. 2000. “Race and Public Deliberation.” Political Communication 17:169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 46:838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Association of Evangelicals. 2004. “For the Health of the Nations: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” <http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility.pdf>. (Accessed March 11, 2005)..+(Accessed+March+11,+2005).>Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe, and Clawson, Rosalee A. 1997. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior 19:221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Laura R. 2000. Filled with Spirit and Power: Protestant Clergy in Politics. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John A.. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard. Vol. 19, pp. 123–205. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2007. “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics.” <http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=153>. (Accessed August 24, 2007)..+(Accessed+August+24,+2007).>Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. second edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priester, Joseph R., and Petty, Richard E.. 1996. “The Gradual Threshold Model of Ambivalence: Relating the Positive and Negative Bases of Attitudes to Subjective Ambivalence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:431–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahn, Wendy. M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37:472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn L.. 1990. “Self-interest in Americans' Public Opinions.” In Beyond Self-Interest, ed. Mansbridge, Jane L.. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., Lau, Richard R., Tyler, Tom R., and Allen, Harris M.. 1980. “Self-interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting.” American Political Science Review 74:670–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherkat, Darren E., and Ellison, Christopher G.. 2007. “Structuring the Religion-Environment Connection: Identifying Religious Influences on Environmental Concern and Activism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46:71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Christian. 2007. “Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics: Mistakes were Made.” Books & Culture 13:11.Google Scholar
Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Gregory A. 2008. Politics in the Parish: The Political Influence of Catholic Priests. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 10:175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Megan M., Zanna, Mark P., and Griffin, Dale W.. 1995. “Let's Not be Indifferent about (Attitudinal) Ambivalence.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consquences, eds. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, Jon A.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 2006. Why? What Happens When People Give Reasons…and Why. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rasinski, Kenneth A., Bradburn, Norman, and D'Andrade, Roy. 1989. “Carryover Effects in Attitude Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 53:495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney. 1961. Small Groups and Political Behavior: A Study of Leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Verba, Sydney, and Nie, Norman. 1972. Participation in America: Political Participation and Social Equality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Welch, Michael R., Leege, David C., Wald, Kenneth D., and Kellstedt, Lyman A.. 1993. “Are the Sheep Hearing the Shepherds? Cue Perceptions, Congregational Responses, and Political Communication Processes.” In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, eds. Leege, David C. and Kellstedt, Lyman A.. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
White, Lynn Jr. 1967. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. Science 155:1203–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar