Background: unstable responses
Converse (1964) noted that people often give different answers when asked the same question repeatedly, concluding that many citizens lack coherent attitudes. Achen (1975) countered that this instability reflects measurement error in survey items. Zaller and Feldman (1992) offered a third view: people hold multiple considerations at once and answer by sampling some of them when asked, so responses fluctuate.
Four axioms
Zaller (1992) summarized the model in four axioms. First, people who are more politically attentive and knowledgeable receive more political messages (reception). Second, people resist messages inconsistent with their predispositions, and this happens more among the politically aware (resistance or acceptance). Third, recently encountered considerations are more accessible. Fourth, responses average across considerations that come to mind at that moment (sampling). Feldman and Zaller (1992) used this framework to analyze ambivalence, or conflicting considerations, about the welfare state.
Elite cues and critiques
According to the model, when elites speak with one voice, more aware people follow the message; when elites divide, more aware people polarize along their side's cues. Berinsky (2007) showed that support for war depends more on elite cues than on casualties. In contrast, Lodge et al. (1989) proposed an on-line processing model in which people update impressions as they encounter information, contrasting with the memory-based sampling of RAS. The model also underpins understanding of the framing effect and priming effect.
FAQ
- What is the RAS model in simple terms?
- When answering surveys, people build answers from whatever thoughts come to mind at that moment rather than pulling out a fixed opinion.
- Are knowledgeable people easier to persuade?
- They receive more messages but filter out those that conflict with their predispositions, so effects depend on message and predisposition.
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. The classic puzzle of unstable mass attitudes.
- Achen, C. H. (1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response. American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1218–1231. Measurement-error account of instability.
- Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press. The book presenting the RAS model.
- Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616. The survey-response theory behind RAS.
- Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307. Ambivalence and conflicting considerations.
- Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399–419. The competing on-line processing model.
- Berinsky, A. J. (2007). Assuming the costs of war: Events, elites, and American public support for military conflict. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 975–997. Elite cues and war opinion.