Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T18:57:15.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Political Sophistication Minimize Value Conflict? Evidence from a Heteroskedastic Graded IRT Model of Opinions toward Climate Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Paul M. Kellstedt ,
Mark D. Ramirez ,
Arnold Vedlitz  and
Sammy Zahran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When citizens hold multiple values relevant to their policy opinions, they might experience value conflict, value reconciliation or make a value trade-off. Yet, it is unclear which individuals are able to manage their multiple values in these ways. We posit a sophistication-interaction theory of value pluralism where the most politically sophisticated individuals are able to reconcile the existence of multiple values, thus increasing the stability of their policy opinions. We test this hypothesis using a series of heteroskedastic graded item response theory models of public opinion toward policies related to climate change. We find that people structure their policy preferences toward climate change policies in values toward the environment and the economy, but only the most sophisticated citizens are able to reconcile the potential conflict between these values.

Keywords

public opinionclimate changevalue conflictpolitical sophisticationitem response theory
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 1309 - 1332
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University ([email protected]); School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University ([email protected]); Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University ([email protected]); Department of Economics, Colorado State University ([email protected]). This material is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Texas A&M University and supported under award NA03OAR4310164 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Department of Commerce. Corresponding author: Paul M. Kellstedt, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4348, USA. Email: [email protected]. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/SRC9HN and online appendices at https://doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123417000369.

References

Adams, Raymond J., Wilson, Mark, and Wu, Margaret. 1997. Multilevel Item Response Models: An Approach to Errors in Variables Regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 22 (1):47–76.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John. 1998. Speaking in Two Voices: American Equivocation About the Internal Revenue Service. American Journal of Political Science 42 (2):418–452.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Andrich, David. 1978. A Rating Formulation for Ordered Response Categories. Psychometrika 43 (4):561–573.Google Scholar
Bord, Richard J., O’Connor, Robert E., and Fisher, Ann. 2000. In What Sense Does the Public Need to Understand Global Climate Change? Public Understanding of Science 9 (3):205–218.Google Scholar
Catton, William, and Dunlap, Riley E.. 1978. Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. The American Sociologist 13:41–49.Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Pp. 206–261 in Ideology and its Discontents, edited by David Apter. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1974. Some Priority Variables in Comparative Electoral Research. Pp. 727–745 in Electoral Behavior: A Comparative Handbook, edited by Richard Rose. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Stephen C., Kane, James G., and Martinez, Michael D.. 2002. Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut, Sometimes You Don’t: Citizens’ Ambivalence about Abortion. Political Psychology 23 (2):285–301.Google Scholar
Craig, Stephen C., Martinez, Michael D., Kane, James G., and Gainous, Jason. 2005. Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens’ Ambivalence about Gay Rights. Political Research Quarterly 58 (1):5–17.Google Scholar
Delli-Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E., and Van Liere, Kent D.. 1978. The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results. Journal of Environmental Education 9:10–19.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E., Van Liere, Kent D., Mertig, Angela G., and Jones, Robert Emmet. 2000. Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3):425–442.Google Scholar
Elliott, Euel, Regens, James L., and Seldon, Barry J.. 1995. Exploring Variation in Public Support for Environmental Protection. Social Science Quarterly 76 (1):41–52.Google Scholar
Ellis, Robert M. 2015. Middle Way Philosophy: The Integration of Belief. Raleigh, NC: Lulu.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. 1992. The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State. American Journal of Political Science 36 (1):268–307.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gawronski, Bertram. 2012. Back to the Future of Dissonance Theory: Cognitive Consistency as a Core Motive. Social Cognition 30 (6):652–668.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2001. Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review 95 (2):379–396.Google Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2001. Core Principles and Policy Reasoning in Mass Publics: A Test of Two Theories. British Journal of Political Science 31 (1):159–177.Google Scholar
Grant, J. Tobin, and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2003. Value Conflict, Group Affect, and the Issue of Campaign Finance. American Journal of Political Science 47 (3):453–469.Google Scholar
Grundmann, Reiner. 2007. Climate Change and Knowledge Politics. Environmental Politics 16 (3):414–432.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1981. What’s Fair?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies. PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (1):57–72.Google Scholar
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Pp. 1–8, in Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Susan Solomon, Dahe Qin, Martin Manning, Melinda Marquis, Kristen Averyt, Melinda M.B. Tignor, Henry LeRoy Miller, Jr., Zhenlin Chen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. Shortcuts to Political Knowledge: Selective Attention and the Accessibility Bias. Pp. 160–185 in Information and the Democratic Process, edited by John Ferejohn and James Kuklinski. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William G. 2006. Value Choices and American Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):706–723.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., Krosnick, Jon A., and Milburn, Michael A.. 1981. Political Involvement and Attitude Structure in the General Public. American Sociological Review 46 (5):660–669.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2012. Why we are Poles Apart on Climate Change. Nature 488 (7411):255.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Jenkins-Smith, Hank, and Braman, Donald. 2011. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14 (2):147–174.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Peters, Ellen, Wittlin, Maggie, Slovic, Paul, Larrimore Ouellette, Lisa, Braman, Donald, and Mandel, Gregory. 2012. The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks. Nature Climate Change 2 (10):732–735.Google Scholar
Karp, David Gutierrez. 1996. Values and their Effect on Pro-Environmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior 28 (1):111–133.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Paul. 2017. “Replication Data for: Does Political Sophistication Minimize Value Conflict? Evidence from a Heteroskedastic Graded IRT Model of Opinions toward Climate Change”, https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/SRC9HN, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:tAeeduCtB4CDlnMEShhTCQ==.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., Holbrook, Allyson L., Lowe, Laura, and Visser, Penny S.. 2006. Policy Agendas: A Study of Popular Concern about Global Warming. Climate Change 77 (1–2):7–43.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Schwieder, David W., and Rich, Robert F.. 1998. ‘Just the Facts, Ma’am’: Political Facts and Public Opinion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 560:143–154.Google Scholar
Layzer, Judith A. 2006. The Environmental Case. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2006. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Climate Change 77 (1–2):45–72.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert C. 1987. Measuring Political Sophistication. American Journal of Political Science 31 (4):856–899.Google Scholar
Luskin, Robert C. 1990. Explaining Political Sophistication. Political Behavior 12 (4):331–361.Google Scholar
McCann, James A. 1997. Electoral Choices and Core Value Change: The 1992 Presidential Election. American Journal of Political Science 41 (2):564–583.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Herbert, and Zaller, John. 1984. The American Ethos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Martinie, Marie-Amelie, Olive, Thierry, and Milland, Laurent. 2010. Cognitive Dissonance Induced by Writing a Counterattitudinal Essay Facilitates Performance on Simple Tasks But Not on Complex Tasks that Involve Working Memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (4):587–594.Google Scholar
Mohai, Paul. 1990. Black Environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly 71 (4):744–765.Google Scholar
Pollock, Philip H., Lilie, Stuart A., and Vittes, M. Elliot. 1993. Hard Issues, Core Values and Vertical Constraint: The Case of Nuclear Power. British Journal of Political Science 23 (1):29–50.Google Scholar
Price, Vincent, and Zaller, John. 1993. Who Gets the News? Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implications for Research. Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (2):133–164.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, and Skrondal, Anders. 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 2nd edition, College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, John P., and Levy, Mark R.. 1986. The Main Source: Learning from Television News. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Salti, Moti, Karoui, Imen El, Maillet, Mathurin, and Naccache, Lionel. 2014. Cognitive Dissonance Resolution is Related to Episodic Memory. PLOS One 9 (9):e108579.Google Scholar
Samejima, F. 1969. Estimation of Latent Trait Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded Scores. Educational Testing Service. Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. Wesley, Gouveia, Valdiney V., Cameron, Linda D., Tankha, Geetika, Schmuck, Peter, and Franěk, Marek. 2005. Values and Their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36 (4):457–475.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Fletcher, Joseph F., Russell, Peter H., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1996. The Clash of Rights: Liberty, Equality, and Legitimacy in Pluralist Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco R., and Brewer, Paul R.. 2000. The Not-So Ambivalent Public: Policy Attitudes in the Political Culture of Ambivalence. Pp. 93–129 in The Issue of Belief: Essays in the Intersection of Non-Attitudes and Attitude Change, edited by Willem E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 93–129.Google Scholar
Stern, Paul C., Dietz, Thomas, and Guagnano, Gregory A.. 1995. The New Environmental Paradigm in Social-Psychological Context. Environment and Behavior 27 (6):723–745.Google Scholar
Stoutenborough, James W., and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2014. The Effect of Perceived and Assessed Knowledge of Climate Change on Public Policy Concerns: An Empirical Comparison. Environment Science and Policy 37:23–33.Google Scholar
Stoutenborough, James W., Bromley-Trujillo, Rebecca, and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2014. Public Support for Climate Change Policy: Consistency in the Influence of Values and Attitudes Over Time and Across Specific Policy Alternatives. Review of Policy Research 31 (6):555–583.Google Scholar
Zahran, Sammy, Brody, Samuel D., Grover, Himanshu, and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2006. Climate Change Vulnerability and Policy Support. Society and Natural Resources 19 (9):771–789.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kellstedt et al. supplementary material

Kellstedt et al. supplementary material 1

Download Kellstedt et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 344.5 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Kellstedt et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/SRC9HN
Link