Ambivalent or indifferent? Examining the validity of an objective measure of partisan ambivalence

Political Psychology

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 863-884

  Thornton, Judd R ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ALSOS; Measurement; Partisan ambivalence; Partisan indifference

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051675323     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: 14679221     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00841.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95, 529-546.
2. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2005). Attitudinal ambivalence and political opinion: Avenues for further research. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence, politics, and public policy (pp. 144-166). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169-184.
5. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63-82.
7. Breckler, S. J. (1994). A comparison of numerical indexes for measuring attitude ambivalence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 350-365.
8. Brieman, L., & Friedman, H. H. (1985). Estimating optimal transformations for multiple regression and correlation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(391), 580-619.
9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Cliff, N. (1993). What is and isn't measurement. In G. Keren & G. Lewis (Eds.), A Handbook of data analysis in the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. 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(2), 285-301.
12. Davison, M. L., & Sharma, A. R. (1990). Parametric statistics and levels of measurement: Factorial designs and multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 394-400.
13. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 268-307.
14. Granberg, D., & Holmberg, S. (1990). The Berelson paradox reconsidered: Intention-behavior changes in U.S. and Swedish election campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(4), 530-550.
15. Hochschild, J. (1981). What's fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95.
17. Jacoby, W. G. (1991). Data theory and dimensional analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
18. Jacoby, W. G. (1999). Levels of measurement and political research: An optimistic view. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 271-301.
19. Kaplan, K. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361-372.
20. Keele, L., & Wolak, J. (2006). Value conflict and volatility in party identification. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 671-690.
21. Keele, L., & Wolak, J. (2008). Contextual sources of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 29(5), 653-673.
22. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 29(2), 115-129.
23. Lavine, H. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915-929.
24. Martinez, M. D., Craig, S. C., & Kane, J. G. (2005). Pros and cons: Ambivalence and public opinion. In M. D. Martinez & S. C. Craig (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of public opinion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2004). Good, bad, indifferent and ambivalent: The consequence of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 60-100). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Miller, J. M., & Peterson, D. A. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics, 66(3), 847-867.
27. Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838-855.
28. Perreault, Jr., W. D., & Young, F. W. (1980). Alternating least squares optimal scaling: Analysis of nonmetric data in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 1-13.
29. Priester, J., & 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(3), 431-449.
30. Rudolph, T. J. (2005). Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence. Political Psychology, 26(6).
31. Rudolph, T. J., & Popp, E. (2007). An information processing theory of ambivalence. Political Psychology, 28(5), 563-586.
32. Stevens, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley.
33. Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819-827.
34. Thompson, M., Zanna, M., & Griffin, D. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In J. Krosnick (Ed.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Tourangeau, R., Rasinki, K., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989). Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(5), 401-421.
36. Vellerman, P. F., & Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. The American Statistician, 47(1), 65-72.
37. Yoo, Sung-Jin. (2010). Two types of neutrality: Ambivalence versus indifference and political participation. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163-177.
38. Young, F. W. (1981). Quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Psychometrika, 46(4), 357-388.
39. Young, F. W. (1987). Theory. In F. W. Young & R. M. Hamer (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Young, F. W., De Leeuw, J., & Takane, T. (1976). Regression with qualitative and quantitative variables: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 41(4), 505-529.
41. Zaller, J. (2004). Floating voters in U.S. presidential elections, 1948-2000. In W. E. Saris & P. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 166-211). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.