Search results

This paper, part of a larger study, is a comparative analysis of five Soviet elites—the central Party apparatchicki, and four specialist elites: the central economic bureaucrats, the military, the literary intelligentsia, and the legal profession. By content analyzing representative periodicals for each elite, data are collected on elite attitudes toward participation in the political system. The overall goal is to gain a measure of the direction and scope of Soviet elite attitudinal change since Stalin; more specifically, (1) to measure the extent to which the elites perceive themselves as participants in the policy-making process, (2) to determine whether the elites perceive their participatory role as expanding over time, and (3) to demark changing patterns of Partyspecialist elite relations from 1952–65.To ground this study in a theoretical framework, analytical categories and hypotheses—derived in part from Brzezinski and Huntington's Political Power: USA/USSR—are formulated to test the perceived extent of elite participation in the Soviet political process. Synoptically, models of political systems may be built by reducing to essentials the mode of interaction between the regime and society. A key variable in analyzing this interaction between superstructure and base is the role and efficacy of societal groups in influencing policy formation and implementation. Following this tack a descriptive continuum may be set up for classifying political systems. At one end of the continuum are ideological systems (e.g., the USSR), at the other "instrumental" systems (e.g., the United States). In instrumental systems the relationship between the political and social system is characterized by "access and interaction."

Based on their interest in politics and knowledge of political leaders, individuals are classified into three levels of partisan sophistication: (1) those scoring high in interest and knowledge (partisan schematics), (2) a middle group, and (3) those scoring low (partisan aschematics). In this experimental study, and consistent with findings from cognitive and social psychology, partisan schematics prove better able than partisan aschematics to classify campaign statements as either Republican or Democratic and to recall the policy stands taken by a fictitious congressman. Aschematics, at the other extreme, perform at no better than chance levels in either the recognition or recall of the congressman's policy statements. There are, however, liabilities to sophistication as well: Schematics demonstrate a "consistency bias" in recalling significantly more policy statements that are consistent with the congressman's party identification than are inconsistent with it. This "restructuring" of memory is especially pronounced among sophisticates, and reflects a serious bias in the processing of political information.

The cognitive content of ideological & partisan belief systems was analyzed using a 2-part quasi-experiment involving political science students at the State U of New York, Stony Brook, in 1982/83. Ss (N = 108 initially, & 108 different Ss in a replication 9 months later), after being randomly assigned to either a liberal-conservative or Democrat-Republican condition, used category rating & magnitude scaling techniques to judge political leaders, groups, & issues. Results indicate that the meanings of partisan & ideological belief systems are quite similar; their cognitive attributes (leaders, groups, & issues) are interchangeable at the categorical level & highly correlated in their degree of typicality. Political sophistication contributes significantly to the degree to which these belief systems are related; ie, for highly sophisticated Ss, they are highly related, while only moderately so for low sophisticates. Sophistication also contributes to the structuring of Ss' own issue preferences, with high sophisticates in both conditions exhibiting a greater level of issue constraint (either partisan or ideological). 3 Tables, 3 Figures, 29 References. Modified HA

Two explanations have been proposed in the literature for the instability & low coherence of responses to policy issues in mass surveys: the fallibility of measurement instruments & the prevalence of nonattitudes. These explanations are tested with data from a survey of 184 adult residents of Long Island, NY, conducted Apr, 1980. Multiple magnitude scaling measures of attitudes are employed & a measurement model with latent variables is proposed. Response reliabilities are estimated jointly for 4 policy issues & for party identification & liberal/conservative self-location, using LISREL. Both the response reliabilities for the items & the correlations among the latent variables are higher in the sophisticated half of the sample than in the unsophisticated half. These findings support the nonattitudes hypothesis, though not ruling out the existence of defects in the measurement instruments. 3 Tables, 2 Figures, 36 References. Modified HA