In the foundational document of modern public-opinion research, Philip E. Converse’s "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" (1964) established the U.S. public’s startling political ignorance. This volume makes Converse’s long out-of-print article available again and brings together a variety of scholars, including Converse himself, to reflect on Converse’s findings after nearly half a century of further research. Some chapters update findings on public ignorance. Others outline relevant research agendas not only in public-opinion and voter-behavior studies, but in American political development, "state theory," and normative theory. Three chapters grapple with whether voter ignorance is "rational." Several chapters consider the implications of Converse’s findings for the democratic ideal of a well-informed public; others focus on the political "elite," who are better informed but quite possibly more dogmatic than members of the general public. Contributors include Scott Althaus, Stephen Earl Bennett, Philip E. Converse, Samuel DeCanio, James S. Fishkin, Jeffrey Friedman, Doris A. Graber, Russell Hardin, Donald Kinder, Arthur Lupia, Samuel L. Popkin, Ilya Somin, and Gregory W. Wawro. This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society.

Utilizing "new wave" research including new psychological theories, new statistical techniques, and a stronger methodology, this collection unites a diversity of recent research perspectives on attitudes and the psychological functions of an attitude. The objective of the editors was to bring together the bits and pieces of validated data into one systematic and adequate set of general principles leading to the view of attitudes as predictions. As the volume reformulates old concepts, explores new angles, and seeks a relationship among various sub-areas, it also shows improvements in the sophistication of research designs and methodologies, the specifications of variables, and the precision in defining concepts.

If at one time we thought that the movement to science would yield unification of the discipline, it is now apparent that there are many roads to science. Still it is important for us to consider yet again what the appropriate goals are for our scientific enterprise. What works in theory building; induction and deduction; prediction and control; the search for useful principles to guide us OCo examining these questions, we can build a better science. Political science has come so far as a discipline that different schools and scholars have different interpretations of science in the study of politics, and that diversity is important to maintain. Advances made in the study of political institutions and behavior are described in twelve essays from the 1983 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association . Addressing they do not employ any single approach to the study of the science of politics. Taken as a whole, they illustrate the multiplicity of interpretations that are presently given to the common enterprise."

What equality means in three modern democracies, both to leaders of important groups and to challengers of the status quo, is the subject of this wide-ranging canvass of perceptions and policy. It is based on extensive questionnaire data gathered from leaders in various segments of society in each countrybusiness, labor unions, farm organizations, political parties, the media-as well as from groups that are seeking greater equalityfeminists, black leaders in the United States, leaders of the Burakumin in Japan. The authors describe the extent to which the same meanings of equality exist, both within and across nations, and locate the areas of consensus and conflict over equality. No other book has compared data of this sort for these purposes. The authors address several major substantive and theoretical issues: the role of values in relation to egalitarian outcomes; the comparison of values and perceptions about equality in economics (income equality) and politics (equality of influence); and the difference among the nations in the ways political institutions affect the incorporation of new demands for equality into the policymaking process. They pay particular attention to how policy is set on issues of gender equality. This book will be controversial, for some see no room in the understanding of political economy for the analysis of values. It will be consulted by a general audience interested in politics and culture as well as by social scientists. Elites and the Idea of Equality is an informative sequel to Equality in America by Sidney Verba and Gary R. Orren (Harvard University Press), which considers similar topics in a national context.

At the Forefront of Political Psychology pays tribute to John L. Sullivan, one of the most influential political psychologists of his generation. Sullivan’s scholarly contributions have deeply shaped our knowledge of belief systems and political tolerance, two flourishing research areas in political psychology that are crucial to understanding the turbulence of our times. This volume, compiled by three of Sullivan’s longtime colleagues and collaborators, includes cutting-edge contributions from scholars in political science and psychology. The book is divided into three sections; the first two focus on how Sullivan’s work on political tolerance and belief systems influenced generations of political psychologists. The final section offers a more personal look at Sullivan’s influence as a mentor to young scholars, many of whom are now intellectual leaders in political psychology. The chapters featured here elucidate how these students were able to flourish under Sullivan’s tutelage and lifelong mentorship. One of John L. Sullivan’s defining traits is his generosity—as a scholar, mentor, leader, and friend. Over the years, many have benefited greatly from Sullivan’s willingness to share his intellect, insight, and passion for democratic values. This impressive collection will appeal to both students and professors of political psychology, but also scholars of social and political behavior, political tolerance, and anyone who has an interest in the contributions made by Sullivan.

Lurking in the back of the minds of many students of American government is the question, “How well does the American political system work?” This book examines this in a way that is broad in approach and accessible to readers. Such an ambitious examination of the effectiveness of the American policymaking system leads to one inescapable question: how can you measure “effectiveness?” The answer taken in this book is to employ a number of different criteria. These criteria include: •the public’s attitudes towards the institutions of government •the degree in which all participate equally in political activities •the level of which public policy is responsive to public opinion •the ability of the actors in the process to create effective public policy •the extent the political system imposes costs and benefits on us equally, regardless of our economic condition race, gender, or age In doing so, this book ties together and expands upon numerous scholarly studies conducted on American public policymaking and uses David Truman’s Systems Model as a conceptual guide. Because of the large amount of data presented, the book will also serve as a reference source for others conducting research on American public policy.

The increase in the "incumbency effect" has long dominated as a research focus and as a framework for interpreting congressional elections. This important new book challenges the empirical claim that incumbents are doing better and the research paradigm that accompanied the claim. It also offers an alternative interpretation of House elections since the 1960s. In a style that is provocative yet fair, learned, and transparent, Jeffrey Stonecash makes a two-pronged argument: frameworks and methodologies suffer when they stop being critically considered, and patterns of House elections over the long term actually reflect party change and realignment. A must-read for scholars and students of congressional elections.