Converse's argument
Converse (1964) defined a belief system as a configuration of ideas and attitudes bound together so that a change in one implies change in others, and he called the degree of binding constraint. Using American election surveys, he showed that only a small minority of citizens understood and used the concepts of liberal and conservative, and that correlations among policy attitudes were far lower than among elites. He also found that the same people often gave different answers to the same question years apart, arguing that many responses may be nonattitudes produced on the spot.
Rebuttals
Nie et al. (1976) reported that mass ideological consistency rose as the political environment of the 1960s and 1970s became clearer. Achen (1975) countered that response instability stems from measurement error in survey items rather than citizen indifference. Feldman (1988) argued that citizens organize attitudes around core values such as equality, opportunity and individualism rather than left–right ideology. Drawing on psychological research, Jost (2006) maintained that ideology still plays an important role in mass judgment.
Measurement and reinterpretation
Ansolabehere et al. (2008) showed that combining multiple items rather than using single questions reveals much more stable attitudes that also shape voting. In contrast, Freeder et al. (2019) showed that only people who know which policy positions go with which party or ideology hold stable attitudes, partly supporting Converse. This debate led into research on the receive-accept-sample model and party cues, grounding the study of how citizens form political judgments.
FAQ
- What is the theory in simple terms?
- Most citizens do not have policy opinions tightly woven into a single ideology the way political experts do.
- Does it mean citizens are incompetent?
- Not necessarily. Rebuttals point to measurement error, core values and party cues as other ways citizens make judgments.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Converse, P. E. (2006). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review, 18(1–3), 1–74. Reprint of Converse's 1964 classic.
- Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Harvard University Press. Reported rising ideological consistency.
- Achen, C. H. (1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response. American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1218–1231. Measurement-error rebuttal.
- Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 416–440. Core values as organizing principles.
- Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670. Psychology's case that ideology matters.
- Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232. Multiple measures reveal stable preferences.
- Freeder, S., Lenz, G. S., & Turney, S. (2019). The importance of knowing "what goes with what": Reinterpreting the evidence on policy attitude stability. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 274–290. Recent reinterpretation supporting Converse.