Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence

Political Psychology

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 905-928

  Rudolph, Thomas J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Campaign finance reform; Response variability; Survey response; Value conflict

Indexed keywords

EID: 29444456937     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00450.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055-1082.
2. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent toward racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345-374.
3. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1998). Speaking in two voices: American equivocation about the Internal Revenue Service. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 418-452.
4. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
5. Bopp, J. Jr., & Coleson, R. E. (2002). The first amendment needs no reform. Catholic University Law Review, 51, 785-837.
6. Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 350-365.
7. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401-423.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualization and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3-25.
9. Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 879-899.
10. Craig, S. C., Kane, J. G., & Martinez, M. D. (2002). Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't: Citizens' ambivalence about abortion. Political Psychology, 23, 285-301.
11. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745.
12. Feldman, S., and Zaller, J. R. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268-307.
13. Foley, E. (1994). Equal-dollars-per-voter: A constitutional principle of campaign finance. Columbia Law Review, 94, 1204-1257.
14. Gais, T. (1998). Improper influence: Campaign finance law, political interest groups, and the problem of political equality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15. Glathar, J. (1996). Between a rock and a hard place: Exploring alternative measures of value conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
16. Grant, J. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2003). Value conflict, group affect, and the issue of campaign finance. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 453-469.
17. Grant, J. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2004). Expression vs. equality: The politics of campaign finance reform. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
18. Gross, K., & Brewer, P. (2002). Thinking about frames: News framing effects on opinion and emotion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
19. Hasen, R. L. (1996). Clipping coupons for democracy: An egalitarian/public choice defense of campaign finance vouchers. California Law Review, 84, 1-60.
20. Hochschild, J. (1981). What's fair? Americans' attitudes toward distributive justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Jacoby, W. G. (2002). Core values and political attitudes. In B. Norrander & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (pp. 177-201). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
22. Katz, I., & Hass, G. R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.
23. Keele, L., & Wolak, J. (2003.) Value conflict and ambivalence in party identification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Political Methodology. Minneapolis, MN.
24. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 915-929.
25. Lavine, H., Thomsen, C. J., Zanna, M. P., & Borgida, E. (1998). On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating influence of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 398-421.
26. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421-448.
27. Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 63-92). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
29. Mutz, D., & Mondak, J. (1997). Dimensions of sociotropic behavior: Group-based judgments of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 284-308.
30. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
31. Neuborne, B. (1999a). Is money different? Texas Law Review, 77, 1609-1626.
32. Neuborne, B. (1999b). Toward a democracy-centered reading of the first amendment. Northwestern University Law Review 93, 1055-1073.
33. Ortiz, D. R. (1998). The democratic paradox of campaign finance reform. Stanford Law Review, 50, 893-911.
34. Peffley, M., Knigge, P., & Hurwitz, J. (2001). A multiple values model of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 379-406.
35. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. 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.
36. Raskin, J., & Bonifaz, J. (1993). Equal protection and the wealth primary. Yale Law and Policy Review, 11, 273-332.
37. Schnell, F. (1993). The foundation of abortion attitudes: The role of values and value conflict. In M. L. Coggin (Ed.), Understanding the new politics of abortion. Newbury Park: Sage.
38. Sorauf, F. J. (2002). Power, money, and responsibility in the major American parties. In J. C. Green & P. Herrnson (Eds.), Responsible partisanship? The evolution of American political parties since 1950 (pp. 83-99). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
39. Smith, B. A. (1997). Money talks: Speech, corruption, equality, and campaign finance. Georgetown Law Journal, 86, 45-100.
40. Smith, B. A. (1998). Soft money, hard realities: The constitutional prohibition of a soft money ban. Journal of Legislation, 179, 179-200.
41. Smith, B. A. (1999). The sirens' song: Campaign finance regulation and the first amendment. Journal of Law and Policy, 6, 1-44.
42. Smith, B. A. (2001). Unfree speech: The folly of campaign finance reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Sniderman, P. M., Fletcher, J. F., Russell, P. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1996). The clash of rights: Liberty, equality, and legitimacy in pluralist democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
45. Steenbergen, M. R., & Brewer, P. R. (2004). The not-so-ambivalent public: Policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 93-129). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
46. Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Sunstein, C. R. (1994). Political equality and unintended consequences. Columbia Law Review, 94, 1390-1414.
48. Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819-827.
49. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
50. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.