Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questioned

Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions QuestionedAuthor(s): David MarshSource: British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 453-465Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/193345 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 14:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BritishJournal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.103 on Fri, 9 May 2014 14:18:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/193345?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


B.J.Pol.S.!i, 453-465 Printed in Great Britain

Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questioned DAVID MARSH*

There is a tendency for quantitative research to be undertaken without sufficient consideration being given to its theoretical justification. An interesting field reveals itself, a hypothesis is generated, a means of testing it is devised and then the research begins. Unfortunately research in political socialization has often been of this type. We need to view political socialization in a wider context, to ask, why do we study political socialization ? Unless we can answer this question then it is difficult to judge the validity of work done in the field. Such work must be analyzed in the light of its broader purpose.

If a researcher attempts to explain his interest in political socialization, and not all do so, he uses one of two types of justification.' The first type of justification is simple. There exists a genuine interest in the process through which political attitudes develop and this in itself stimulates certain researchers to study the political socialization process.2 However, such an interest is incon- clusive and begs the question: why study these attitudes? Indeed, if this intel- lectual curiosity concerning the development of political attitudes were the only stimulus the rapid expansion of interest in the field might have been less dramatic.

The second type of justification is both more complex and more interesting. It is claimed that political socialization is an important factor, a key variable in understanding the operation of the political system. This is because political attitudes shape political behaviour and this behaviour provides the stimulus for change and the underpinning of stability. If this is the case then studying the development of political attitudes should help to explain systemic stability and

* Department of Politics, University of Exeter. I would like to thank Professor M. M. Goldsmith, Dr. R. E. Dowse, Michael Hawkins and Wyn Grant who read and usefully criticized earlier drafts of this article.

We are concerned with the justification given for the interest in political socialization not the actual stimuli which provoked that interest. The area has become a very popular one and this in itself directs many towards it. R. Sigel, ed., Learning About Politics (New York: Random House, I970) is concerned with the policy implications of political socialization and therefore must assume that political socialization can effect the operation of the political system.

2 L. Froman, 'Personality and Political Socialisation', Journal of Politics, 23 (1961), 341-52, says for example: 'The primary question in political socialisation is "how do we learn politically relevant attitudes and behaviour" ?' He does not consider the effect of the resultant behaviour on the political system.



454 MARSH

change. The argument is rarely this baldly stated though Dennis et al., come very near to doing so:

A chief reason why the political socialisation process has recently come under intense analytical study is the new recognition of its connection to the process of fundamental change and stability in the political system. Leading students of politics as they develop more empirically adequate theories of system phenomena agree that the role of socialisation in affecting the content and magnitude of political change can be relatively great.3

This quotation is to be found in the introduction to an article concerned basically with an analysis of certain of the political attitudes of young British people. It is not an hypothesis, it is stated as if it were a fact and no quantitative evidence is produced which has any relevance to this statement.

Similar, though perhaps less explicit, quotations can be found in the work of many other political scientists who have turned their sights towards political socialization.4 The major impetus directing interest towards the field and also the major assumption in that field is that the study of the process of political socialization in a nation can help explain, in some measure, the operation of that political system. The implication stated simply would seem to be that an understanding of the conditions under which attitudes change or remain stable will help us to understand and perhaps predict stability and change within the political system.

I have adopted the term 'assumption' rather than the term 'hypothesis' deliberately. An hypothesis may be generated from prior research or inspired speculation but it is generated with the idea that it can be and will be subject to testing. However Dennis et al. are not alone when they state what would better be viewed as an hypothesis as a 'fact' which is assumed to be true. In political socialization research no author really considers the series of complicated problems involved in using individual attitudes or aggregates of attitudes to help evolve generalizations about the performance of the political system. What is studied is always the process5 of attitude development and not the effect of the outcome of that process in terms of attitudes and resulting behaviour on the operation of this political system. Yet the idea that these attitudes do effect the political system is the chief justification for studying their development. It is for this reason that the term 'assumption' is used.

3 J. Dennis et al., 'Support for Nation and Government Among English Children', British Journal of Political Science, I (I971), 25-48.

4 For example, F. Greenstein, entry, 'Political Socialisation', International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan, I968), vol. 14, pp. 551-5, says: 'political learning has effects on the later behaviour of the individuals exposed to socialising influence and, by exten- sion, on the political system.' p. 555.

D. Easton and J. Dennis, Children and the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), concur: '[This book] addresses itself to one major condition - socialisation - that contributes to the capacity of a political system to persist in a world either of stability or change' p. 4.

5 The process is however usually studied in a superficial way. What is studied is the degree of influence of various agents not the processes by which they influence.



Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questioned

This key assumption concerning the role of political socialization must logically have foundations in three other assumptions if it is to be intelli- gible. I will state these assumptions and then treat them as hypotheses which although not rigorous are nevertheless capable of being tested against available evidence.

There are three assumptions involved:

i. 'Adult opinions are in a large part the end product of political socialization' 6

These are Greenberg's words, but this assumption is common in the literature. The excessive concentration within this literature on childhood socialization7 well illustrates this fact. The political attitudes of children are studied with adult political attitudes and behaviour in mind. There are no longitudinal studies. Any justification of this concentration on youthful socialization must be based on the idea that attitudes learnt early are most important and more likely to persist. Early attitudes are viewed as likely to remain virtually unchanged or as underpinning in some more subtle way subsequent adult attitudes.

The line of argument involved here is often extended resulting in a second assumption:

2. Adult behaviour is shaped inpart by attitudes learnt during childhood socialization

This assumption subsumes the first one. It is largely concerned with the relationship between attitudes and behaviour but it is based on the belief that attitudes in some sense remain stable from youth to adulthood. The idea that attitudes shape, and can be used to predict, behaviour is assumed. Indeed it must be assumed as actual behaviour is not studied in any meaningful sense.8 Easton and Dennis are explicit in their use of this assumption: 'in many areas of enquiry we may nevertheless hold to the theory that what is learnt early in life tends to be retained and to shape later attitudes and behaviour.' 9

The third assumption completes the pattern of linkages implied by the basic

6 E. S. Greenberg, 'Consensus and Dissent Trends in Political Socialisation Research' in Greenberg, ed., Political Socialisation (New York: Atherton Press, 1970), pp. I-Io.

7 The importance of adult socialization is never explicitly denied but it is largely ignored when it comes to assembling quantifiable evidence.

8 Behaviour is mentioned in almost all definitions of political socialization but it is rarely studied. R. Hess and J. Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), conclude when referring back to quantitative material: '[this book has been] an attempt to chart and document the growth of political behaviour', p. 212. However their work hardly justifies this conclusion. They present just two tables on discussion, the wearing ofbuttons, and distributing of leaflets as behaviour dimensions, pp. io and 88, and the evidence regarding those behaviours was based on recall data collected at the same time as the attitudinal data.

9 Easton and Dennis, Children and the Political System, p. 9. Other authors have made similar statements, thus, Hess and Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes, p. 7: 'The argument for the importance of childhood learning for the political behaviour of adults appears to have considerable validity' and R. Sigel, 'Assumptions about the Learning of Political Values', Annals, 361 (September 1965), pp. I-9, 'Having once internalised the society's norms it will presumably not be difficult for the individual to act in congruence with them' p. I.

455



456 MARSH

assumption concerning the relationship between individual attitudes and the operation of the political system.

3. 'Individual political opinions [and the resulting behaviour] have an impact on the operation of a nation's government and political life" 0

Again Greenberg's words are a reflection of a widely held assumption.1' The quantitative material measures individual attitudes or group attitudes but the eventual aim is to use these attitudes to help explain the operation of the political system. As this is the aim this assumption must be made though it might be subject to sophisticated qualifications.

The rest of this piece is a plea for sophistication. Such assumptions as these should be acknowledged and their implications realized. If this is done then these assumptions can be tested against the evidence. The argument in this paper is that an approach which makes assumptions such as those just outlined is intellectually weak.

I shall consider each of the assumptions independently. However, as they are closely linked any valid criticism of one assumption necessarily weakens the others.

ASSUMPTION I: ADULT OPINIONS ARE IN A LARGE PART THE END

PRODUCT OF YOUTHFUL POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION

This assumption, in common with statements made in much of the political socialization literature, stresses the role of youthful socialization and largely ignores adult socialization. This is unfortunate for as Brim says: 'The socialization that an individual receives in childhood cannot be adequate as preparations for the tasks demanded of him in later years.'12 Different expectations are made of the individual at different times and often the individual needs to make important personal changes to cope with these changed expectations. Yet there is a tendency in political socialization research to ignore this fact. As Kent Jennings and Niemi say:13 'Recent empirical studies (in political socialisation) have suggested one characteristic pattern whereby children are rapidly inducted into the political system and at a relatively early age, adopt attitudes, feelings and even activities

previously associated only with adults.' Kent Jennings and Niemi analyze a considerable amount of material, some

original, before they conclude in support of Brim: 'political socialisation is not

particularly distinctive from other types, since it appears that critical changes

10 Greenberg, 'Consensus and Dissent', p. 6, My insertion in brackets. I Only Greenberg and to a lesser extent, R. Dawson and K. Prewitt, Political Socialisation

(Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1969), see especially pp. 4I-80, acknowledge their assumptions and neither bring direct quantitive evidence to demonstrate their validity.

12 0. Brim and S. Wheeler, Socialisation After Childhood: Two Essays (New York: Wiley, 1966), p. 18.

13 M. Kent Jennings and R. G. Niemi, 'Patterns of Political Learning', Harvard Educational

Review, 38 (1968), 443-67, p. 466.



Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questioned 457

and developments do occur over the life cycle14...the hypothesised pattern (of a rapid early development of political attitudes to an adult level) is by no means an accurate description of a variety of political orientations.' In response to their conclusion the authors adapt the hypothesized pattern and emphasize later socialization. However it may be wiser to emphasize that while patterns may exist, an hypothesis which must be tested with more quantitative evidence, they are unlikely to be universal. Nevertheless it must be concluded that the assumption that political attitudes learnt early are the most significant is not based on sound quantitative evidence.

Attitudes learnt in later socialization may indeed be more significant than has been realized. However, attitudes which developed at an early age might still be the most stable over time shaping and influencing the perception of those later attitudes. Ideally, a longitudinal study of political attitudes and behaviour would best enable us to test this hypothesis. However there is no such evidence and we must rely on inferential data.

The earliest 'attitudes' studied in general socialization research are in fact best not regarded as 'attitudes'. A great deal of social-psychological and sociological work concerned with early socialization concentrates on what are better understood as personality variables, such as cynicism, efficacy, dependency and aggression. The idea here is that these personality traits perform an important role in the formation of specific attitudes and behaviour. This idea has been incorporated into the study of political socialization though not without many uncertainties as to the links between personality, attitudes and behaviour. 5

What evidence exists, however, does not suggest that these basic personality dimensions are very stable. Tuddenham16 found evidence of consistency of individual's scores over time on a large number of personality dimensions but few of the correlations involved were significant. Kagan and Moss17 found moderate stability in dependency, aggression and achievement scores between five age periods. However, again the correlations between scores on the same dimensions at different time periods were low and boys' early dependency ratings

14 The suggestion that adult socialization is more important than is often claimed is supported by data in Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963). They found that freedom to express oneself and influence decisions in the work atmosphere was more highly correlated with political efficacy than were similar feelings of freedom with regard to home or school environment, see p. 363.

15 See - Froman, 'Personality and Political Socialisation', and F. Greenstein, 'Personality and Political Socialisation: The Theories of Authoritarian and Democratic Character', Annals (September 1965), p. 8i.

16 R. D. Tuddenham, 'The Constancy of Personality Ratings Over Two Decades', Genetic Psychological Monographs, 60 (1959), 3-29.

17 J. Kagan and M. Moss, From Birth to Maturity (New York: Wiley, 1962). There are a number of methodological criticisms which can be directed at this work, see G. Elder, 'Adolescent Socialisation and Development', pp. 239-369 in E. Borgatta and W. Lambert, eds., The Hand- book of Personality Theory and Research (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968), p. 245, Footnote 2. The five age periods are: birth to three, three to six, six to ten, ten to fourteen, and nineteen to twenty-nine.

30



458 MARSH

and girls' early aggression ratings were non-predictive of later scores. Bloom18 adds depth to this evidence by suggesting certain circumstances, notably when an individual is geographically or socially mobile, under which personality change may be more pronounced. In effect all that can be said is that the patterns of consistency and inconsistency with regard to personality traits do not readily lend themselves to generalizations.

If early personality traits do not show signs of a high level of consistency over time it is not wise to stress their likely role in shaping adult attitudes and behaviour. At any given time personality traits may help predict attitudes and/or behaviour, but it is misleading to see early scores on personality scales as predictive of later adult attitudes and behaviour. Scores on political efficacy and political cynicism scales administered to children cannot be used with any degree of certainty to predict those children's adult attitudes and behaviour with regard to the political system. Such scores may be predictive but we need evidence, we cannot assume this to be so.

Although we may be dubious about the assumed stability of personality traits over time early attitudes might still be regarded as persisting over time. It is however surprisingly difficult to find any evidence concerned with the stability of attitudes in the sociology or social-psychology literature. Indeed, the focus of attention in attitude research has often been directed towards the study of the conditions under which attitudes change. This emphasis might be interpreted in many ways, however it does suggest that to assume attitude stability may be misguided.

There have been a small number of studies in political science which throw light on the assumption of attitude stability.19 The most often studied political attitude is political party preference,20 and the stability of this attitude has recently been brought into question. Butler and Stokes in a short-span longitudinal study of party preference in Britain reported considerable changes in

allegiance: for example, 36 per cent of their sample changed allegiance between an interview in 1963 and one in 1964.21 In a smaller study which was concerned with a behaviour (voting) rather than an attitude (party preference), Benewick and Birch found that 26 per cent of their sample changed their voting behaviour between the 1959 and I964 elections while 40 per cent of the sample failed to vote

consistently for the same party at three elections.22

18 B. S. Bloom, Stability and Change in Human Characteristics (New York: Wiley, 1964). 19 There has been some work done on the consistency of attitude elements one with another,

i.e. the consistency of the cognitive, affective and conative elements of an attitude. This is however a different problem. See esp. S. A. Kirkpatrick, 'Political Attitudes and Behaviour: Some Consequences of Attitude Ordering', Midwest Journal of Political Science, xIv (1970), 1-24.

20 This is usually studied by means of recall data which are highly suspect. 21 D. Butler and D. Stokes, Political Change in Britain (London: MacMillan, 1969), p. 294,

Table 13.I. See esp. chap. 13, 'Patterns in Change'. 22 R. J. Benewick et al., 'The Floating Voter and The Liberal View of Representation',

Political Studies, xvII (1969), I77-95, p. I88, Table 9. The 1955 vote is based on recall, which is likely to slightly inflate the number who voted consistently.




Of course, party preference and voting behaviour still show evidence of considerable stability but we must be wary of assuming this stability as inevitable. If such short term change is possible it would seem unwise, even in the light of high correlation between the individual's childhood preference, his adult preference and his parents' preference, to assume that the individual's preference had remained stable throughout the period between youth and adulthood let alone to assume a causal link between the father's and the child's preference. In the light of such evidence as that produced by Butler and Stokes it would appear possible that in some cases an individual's party preference may change several times over his life span. If he finally changes to a position identical with that of his father, it may be for reasons not directly connected with his childhood socialization. It would appear likely that attitudes towards given political issues are even less stable than is party preference. Butler and Stokes found that on two given political issues23 at three successive interviews only 30 per cent of those interviewed held stable political attitudes. Converse in a more extensive analysis reconsiders the Survey Research Centre's data which sampled the same respon- dents three times over six years. They tested political attitudes employing questions such as 'If Negroes are not getting fair treatment in jobs and housing the government should see they do so.' Converse found that: 'faced with a typical item of this kind only about thirteen people out of twenty managed to locate themselves even on the same side of the controversy in successive interogations when ten out of twenty would have done so by chance.'24 Whether such evidence is interpreted as showing that attitudes change, or that there are few attitudes except those which are arbitrarily structured by the questionnaire method, it would seem to indicate that the first assumption is inadequate.

There seems to be doubt as to the stability of personality dimensions, attitudes and behavioural intentions, and as to the necessary primacy of early socialization. I would also add that a great amount of research25 suggests that very few individuals have the type of complex political belief system which might support and underpin stable political attitudes. Indeed it seems fair to conclude that there is a strong possibility that attitudes for most individuals lack both vertical and horizontal stability. That is, they are often, perhaps even usually, neither consistent with different attitudes held by the individual at the same interview, nor with the same attitude held by the individual at different interviews.

In conclusion, this initial assumption would seem open to considerable doubt. A much more complex approach is needed than has been used. It is necessary to specify the conditions under which attitudes are likely to remain stable and

23 Butler and Stokes, Political Change, pp. I93-214, esp. Table I99. The two political attitude questions were: (i) should more industries be nationalized? and (ii) should Britain give up the bomb ?

24 P. Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems' in D. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, I964), 206-6I, p. 239, see also pp. 238-46.

2s Converse, 'The Nature of Belief Systems', A. Arkoff and C. M. Meredith, 'Consistency in Attitudes Towards Civil Liberties', Journal of Social Psychology, 70 (I966), 265-74. H. McClosky, 'Consensus and Ideology in American Politics', American Political Science Review, LVIII (I964), pp. 361-82.



460 MARSH

early attitudes are likely to underpin later attitudes. Longitudinal data are essential.

ASSUMPTION 2: ADULT BEHAVIOUR IS SHAPED IN PART BY ATTITUDES

LEARNT DURING CHILDHOOD SOCIALIZATION

This assumption subsumes the first one. Insofar as it assumes the stability of attitudes over time and/or that early attitudes underpin later attitudes it is thus weakened. However the assumption is also vulnerable because it implies a high level of consistency between attitudes and behaviour.

At first sight it is tempting to agree with the assumption incomplete though it is. However this incompleteness is significant. The political socialization literature, in common with the general socialization literature, does not set out, or attempt to set out the conditions under which attitudes learnt during childhood will shape behaviour.

In the political socialization literature the content of the concept of attitude is rarely considered.26 At a conceptual level an attitude is considered to be in-

dependent of, or rather separate from the behaviour; and this at least avoids the pitfalls of some psychological research which defines attitude as an abstraction from behaviour, or behaviour as a component of attitude.27 At an empirical level however the distinction is rarely made; attitudes are studied because of their connection with behaviour but the exact nature of this connection is not considered. This is unwise.

In fact there is a considerable body of quantitative material which throws the attitude-behaviour link into stark relief.28 I shall consider two studies in detail which are indicative of the type of research which has been undertaken in social

psychology. The greatest proportion of the work on attitude-behaviour con-

sistency has been carried out with reference to attitudes and behaviour towards

minority groups. This interest was stimulated in part by Lapiere's classic study showing considerable discrepancies between verbal responses and treatment of Chinese guests in restaurants and hotels,29 and in part by social scientists' interest in America's ethnic problems. The classic experimental test of attitude-behaviour consistency in this field has compared the subject's willingness to be photo-

26 The only person to directly attack this problem is L. Froman, 'Learning Political Attitudes', Western Political Quarterly, 15 (1962), pp. 304-13, though the distinction between the cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects of attitude are often referred to. See J. Dennis, 'Major Problem of Political Socialisation Research', Midwest Journal of Political Science, (1968), p. 85.

27 The whole problem of the connection between attitudes and related concepts and between the cognitive, evaluative and conative aspects of attitude is an important and unclear area. See Kirkpatrick, 'Political Attitudes'. His work however does not make clear the measures which were used to test the cognitive, affective and conative aspects of an attitude.

28 This area is especially well reviewed by A. Wicker, 'Attitudes Versus Actions: The Relation-

ship of Verbal and Overt Behavioural Responses to Attitude Objects', Journal of Social Issues, 25 (1969), 4I-78. See also I. Deutscher, 'Words and Deeds: Social Science and Social Policy', Social Problem, 13 (1966), 235-54. This article besides reviewing relevant literature sets the

problem in a significant historical perspective. 29 R. T. Lapiere, 'Attitudes Versus Actions', Social Forces, 1934, 230-7.




graphed with negroes with his scores on scales of verbal attitude responses to negroes. Defleur and Westie30 for example considered the attitude-behaviour consistency of two groups representing the top quartile (most prejudiced) and bottom quartile (least prejudiced) of score distributions on a scale of attitudes to negroes. The behavioural measure took the form of a standard photographic release statement given to each subject which contained a graded series of seven uses to which the photograph might be put and which they were asked to complete. The individual could authorize the release of the photograph for all, any or none of these purposes.31 Although a Chi square test revealed a significant (p < o-oI) relationship between attitudes and level of agreement to the release of photo- graphs for publication, the proportion of inconsistent subjects (14 of 46) was large bearing in mind that the subjects were selected to represent the extremes of the verbal scale.32

In a very different sphere Corey administered weekly true-false examinations to sixty-seven students enrolled in an educational psychology class. Students graded their own papers after they had been accurately scored but left unmarked by the researcher. All the test questions were true or false statements which had to be marked by the students with easily-altered 'pluses' and 'minuses'. The difference between a student's 'reported score' and his actual score was his cheating score. Attitudes towards cheating had been previously measured by a reliable questionnaire scored by the Likert method. The correlation between cheating scores and attitudes to cheating was + 0-02. Corey concluded: 'whether or not a student cheated depended in much larger part upon how well he had prepared for the examination than on any opinions he had stated about honesty in examination.' 33

These are only two examples of the type of experiments which have been devised.34 Wicker in a very useful review article reports on research concerned with attitudes and behaviour towards: (i) job performance and attendance;

30 M. L. Defleur and R. F. Westie, 'Verbal Attitudes and Overt Acts: An Experiment on the Saliency of Attitudes', American Sociological Review, 23 (1958), 667-73.

31 The seven uses were: (i) laboratory use to be seen only by professional sociologists, (2) publication in a technical journal read only by professional sociologists, (3) laboratory use to be seen by a few dozen students, (4) as a teaching aid to be seen by hundreds of sociology students, (5) publication in the student newspaper in a story on the research, (6) publication in the student's home town paper, (7) use in a nation-wide publicity campaign advocating racial integration.

32 This work was replicated with methodological changes by L. S. Linn, 'Verbal Attitudes and Overt Behaviour: A Study of Racial Discrimination', Social Forces, 43 (I965), 353-64. He found that the mean number of release levels signed on the questionnaire was 4-9 compared with 2-8 in the behaviour situation. Attitude/behaviour discrepancy of two or more levels on the 7-point photograph release scale were shown by 59 % of the sample.

33 S. M. Corey, 'Professed Attitudes and Actual Behaviour', Journal of EducationalPsychology, 28 (I937), 271-80, p. 278. This research was more recently replicated by L. C. Freeman, and T. Aaton, 'Invalidity of Indirect and Direct Measures of Attitude Towards Cheating', Journal of Personality (1960), 443-7. They found that none of their verbal measures was significantly related to cheating behaviour.

34 See Wicker, 'Attitudes versus Actions', pp. 47-66, esp. Table I, pp. 49-5 I, and Deutscher, 'Words and Deeds', pp. 245-7.



462 MARSH

(2) minority groups; (3) breast feeding; (4) participating in civil rights activity; (5) participating in psychological research; (6) attending union meetings; (7) cheating in examinations; (8) applying for public housing; (9) voting in student elections. He concludes that:

The studies... have covered a wide range of subject populations, verbal attitude measures, overt behaviour measures, and attitude objects. Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that it is considerably more likely that attitudes will be unrelated, or only slightly related, to overt behaviours than attitudes will be closely related to actions...Only rarely can as much as o1 per cent of variance in overt behaviour measures be accounted for by attitudinal data.35

This would seem a fairly damning indictment or this second assumption. The relationship between attitudes and behaviour is not a straightforward one. It must be realized that personal and situational factors may intervene between attitude and behaviour to reduce consistency. Indeed, this problem is so important in political socialization research that I shall briefly refer here to some of these factors.

It is too infrequently realized that in many circumstances many different attitudes may be associated with a given action. Campbell et al. for example found that the score on a scale constructed of five different attitudes to various political stimuli was a considerably better predictor of voting behaviour than was the individual's attitude to the particular Presidential candidate.36 Thus if we study one attitude which seems associated with a particular action it may prove non-predictive because another presumably conflicting attitude is influencing the person in a way inconsistent with the first attitude. So at any given time we may be studying the 'wrong'(attitude if we are interested in predicting someone's behaviour.

A person may also have motivations or personality traits associated with holding an attitude which are different from those associated with actually performing the behaviour. So someone might vote for party Xwhich offers him a perceived short-term gain though he had previously identified his interests with the ideals of party Y.

Generally, however, situational factors are probably more important in explaining attitude-behaviour inconsistency than are personal factors.37 Warner and Defleur for example found that two intervening variables, social constraint and social distance, had considerable influence on attitude-behaviour consistency.

35 'Attitudes versus Actions', pp. 64-5. 36 A. Campbell, P. Converse, W. E. Miller and D. E. Stokes, The American Voter (New York:

Wiley, 1960), pp. 64-88. The scale was composed of: (a) attitude to party candidate, (b) attitude to Democratic party, (c) attitude to Republican party, (d), attitude to party's position on domestic affairs, (e) attitude to party's position on foreign issues.

37 Wicker, 'Attitudes versus Actions', says: 'Systematic research examining both personal and situational influences in overt behaviour has shown that predictions of overt behaviour can be made more accurately from a knowledge of the situation than from a knowledge of individual differences. Intra-personal variables become important as predictors when their interaction with situational factors are considered', p. 69.




In high social constraint situations where behaviour was likely to be exposed there was a negative correlation between attitude and behaviour if the group norm was conflicting with the attitude held by the individual. If the individual held a similar attitude to that common in the group then exposure was liable to lead to higher attitude-behaviour consistency.38

Perhaps the situational factor which has been most often discussed is that of stimulus dissimilarity. The stimulus provoking the attitude may be different from the stimulus provoking the behaviour. As Fishbein says:

We have frequently measured a subject's attitudes towards Negroes and then attempted to predict whether the subject would ride with, walk with or co-operate with Negroes. But it is unlikely that the subject's beliefs about the particular Negro he comes into contact with are similar to his beliefs about Negroes in general.39

It would be easy to cite other personal and situational factors which effect attitude-behaviour consistency.40 C. Wright Mills described the disparity between attitudes and behaviour as 'the central methodological problem of the social sciences.'41 This is a view which might not be accepted by all but the problem is at least very important to any student of political socialization. Several authors in the attitude field 42 have attempted to develop a sophisticated model with which to understand the connection between attitude and behaviour. Such an approach is essential. We need to know much more than an individual's attitude in order to be able to predict his behaviour. Despite the greater difficulty involved in observing behaviour as compared with measuring an attitude this is not an area which can be ignored. As Lapiere said long ago:

The questionnaire is cheap, easy, and mechanical. The study of human behaviour is time consuming, intellectually fatiguing, and depends for its success upon the ability of the investigator. The former method gives quantitative results, the latter mainly qualitative. Quantitative measurements are quantitatively accurate; qualitative evalu- ations are always subject to the errors of human judgement. Yet it would seem far more worthwhile to make a shrewd guess regarding that which is essential than to accurately measure that which is likely to prove quite irrelevant.43

38 L. C. Warner and M. L. Defleur, 'Attitude as an Interactional Concept: Social Constraint and Social Distance as Intervening Variables Between Attitudes and Actions', American Sociological Review, 34 (1969), 153-69, pp. 166-8.

39 M. Fishbein, 'The Relationship Between Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviour', in S. Feldman, ed., Cognitive Consistency (New York: Academic, 1966).

40 Wicker, 'Attitudes versus Actions', deals with this problem at more length, pp. 65-74. 41 C. Wright Mills, 'Methodological Consequences of the Sociology of Knowledge', in

L. Horowitz, ed., Power Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright-Mills (New York: Ballantine Books, 1963), p. 467.

42 See, in the social psychology literature, M. Fishbein, 'Attitude and the Prediction of Behaviour' in Fishbein, ed., Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (New York: Wiley, 1967). In the sociology literature, Arnold Rose, in 'Intergroup Relations vs Prejudice: Pertinent Theory for the Study of Social Change', Social Problems, (1956), has developed an interesting symbolic interactionist argument regarding the theoretical independence of attitudes and behaviour.

43 Lapiere, 'Attitudes versus Actions', p. 237.



464 MARSH

ASSUMPTION 3: INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL OPINIONS (AND MORE SPECI-

FICALLY THEIR POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR) HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE

OPERATION OF A NATION'S GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL LIFE

Although the other assumptions lack precision, this must be the most grandiose and the least precise. This assumption avoids so many complex sociological questions that one wonders why so few authors have stood back to consider it and its implications. An elementary study of any nation will show that not all individuals' political behaviour and attitudes have equal influence. Any analysis of politics must involve at the least a sophisticated examination of different political roles and a series of complex power relationships. Yet most students of political socialization study the attitudes and behaviour of groups of children who ideally would represent a cross section of all types of combinations of demographic characteristics. If their major interest is in the operation of the political system, and some people's behaviour is more influential in affecting that system than that of others, then this concentration or aim to achieve a rep- resentative national sample would seem misguided. It seems to me that bearing in mind the purpose of political socialization research we should study the behaviour (not the attitudes) of the elite (not the entire population) as their behaviour is likely to have most influence on the operation of the political system.

At the very least it is essential to study the situations under which individual or group attitudes and opinions influence the political system. In order for this to be done we would need a much more sophisticated delineation of what is understood by the concept of a 'political system'. This is difficult. The type of behaviour that has influence on the political system is probably better understood if it is more directly related to the immediate situation in which it takes place. We could say that in a legislature, the behaviour of a certain group affects the outcome in terms of the policy enacted, but this is a statement at a much lower level of generality than are statements about the effect of behaviour on the 'political system'. These more specific statements are likely to be much more valid and this is an area which has attracted some researchers though the progress made has been limited.44

If we leave this assumption here it is because the problems involved are so immense. I am inclined to believe that this is a sphere which is best considered independently of the political socialization process. At this time political socialization cannot be used in an explanatory role at this level. Political socialization involves the study of the development of political attitudes and behaviour. The problem of the relationship between the outcome of this process and the operation of the political system is one which is best considered separately. Indeed, any

44 See H. Eulau et al., 'The Political Socialisation of American State Legislations', Midwest Journal of Political Science, 3 (May, I959), 188-206; R. D. Hedland, 'Legislative Socialisation and Role Orientations', The Laboratoryfor Political Research, University of Iowa, Report no. I I, (October, 1967); A. Kornberg et al., 'Some Differences in the Political Socialisation Patterns of Canadian and American Party Officials', Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2 (March, 1969), 64-88; K. Prewitt et al., 'Political Socialisation and Political Roles', Public Opinion Quarterly, xxx (I966-7); 569-82.




relationship which exists between changes in the outcomes of the political socialization process and changes in the political system is far from simple, and involves many complex intervening variables.

This discussion would seem to lead inevitably to two conclusions. Firstly, we must modify our assumptions concerning the role and purpose of political socialization research. This is most important. Secondly, insofar as we are still interested in the development of the political attitudes and behaviour of a given population, we need more longitudinal studies and more work in the sphere of adult and particularly elite socialization.



Documents

Political Socialization: The Implicit Assumptions Questioned