Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Is Attitudinal Hypocrisy and Why Does It Matter?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hypocrisy in American Political Attitudes

  • 255 Accesses

Abstract

How can attitudinal hypocrisy and the magnitudes thereof be defined, explained, and measured? After explaining the salience of attitudinal hypocrisy as a research idea, I lay out the path forward for the book’s approaches, with conceptualizations, operationalizations, and quantifications of attitudes, ideologies, and the hypocrisies that result from the collision thereof for American liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and populism. Because no previous scholarship has taken on the task with anything above pairwise or whimsical qualitative approaches, novel methods must be devised. I utilize work from attitude research paradigms to formulate a series of quasi-algorithms for the quantification of logical inconsistency in individuals’ attitudes and attitude structures, with simple standard deviation calculations as the go-to method by which hypocrisy can be computed and, ultimately, analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abelson, R. P., & Rosenberg, M. J. (1958). Symbolic psycho-logic: A model of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G. (2011). A glossary of literary terms. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achterberg, P., & Houtman, D. (2009). Ideologically illogical? Why do the lower-educated Dutch display so little value coherence? Social Forces, 87(3), 1649–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, H. B. (1893). The life and writings of Jared Sparks: Comprising selections from his journals and correspondence (Vol. I). Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Maes, H. H. (2012). The genetic basis of political sophistication. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(1), 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux, K., & Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Who wants to have a tea party? The who, what, and why of the Tea Party movement. PS Political Science and Politics, 45(4), 700–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balch, G. I. (1979). Statistical manipulation in the study of issue consistency: The gamma coefficient. Political Behavior, 1(3), 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. H., & Parsons, R. W. (1977). Measuring belief system structure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilder, M. S. (2015). Madison’s hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., & Murray, R. A. (2015). Values, inter-attitudinal structure, and attitude change Value accessibility can increase a related attitude’s resistance to change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1739–1750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., Ensley, M. J., & Wagner, M. W. (2012). Political ideology in American politics: One, two, or none? The Forum, 10(3). doi:10.1515/1540-8884.1526.

  • Choma, B. L. (2008). Why are people liberal? A motivated social cognition perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P. A. (1995). Finding one’s way around the political compass (or why libertarianism is right-wing). Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 18(3), 207–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. J. (1998). A passion to punish: Abortion opponents who favor the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crano, W. D., & Lyrintzis, E. (2015). Structure and change of complex political attitudes. In J. P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & W. D. Crano (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critcher, C. R., Huber, M., Ho, A. K., & Koleva, S. P. (2009). Political orientation and ideological inconsistencies: (Dis)comfort with value tradeoffs. Social Justice Research, 22(2), 181–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lange, S. L. (2007). A new winning formula? The programmatic appeal of the radical right. Party Politics, 13(4), 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, C. J. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37(3), 509–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eclectablog. (2013, July 23). Michigan Senator Rick Jones demonstrates blatant hypocrisy in favor of Big Oil [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/07/michigan-senator-rick-jones-demonstrates-blatant-hypocrisy-in-favor-of-big-oil.html

  • Ellis, C. (2012). Public ideology and political dynamics in the United States. American Politics Research, 40(2), 327–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2009). Symbolic ideology in the American electorate. Electoral Studies, 28(3), 388–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrand, M. (Ed.). (1911a). The records of the federal convention of 1787 (Vol. I). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrand, M. (Ed.). (1911b). The records of the federal convention of 1787 (Vol. II). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federico, C. M., Deason, G., & Fisher, E. L. (2012). Ideological asymmetry in the relationship between epistemic motivation and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 381–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico, C. M., & Hunt, C. V. (2013). Political information, political involvement, and reliance on ideology in political evaluation. Political Behavior, 35(1), 89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico, C. M., Hunt, C. V., & Ergun, D. (2009). Political expertise, social worldviews, and ideology: Translating “competitive jungles” and “dangerous worlds” into ideological reality. Social Justice Research, 22, 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico, C. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 221–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (1997). Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 957–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geser, H. (2009). Rising tides of ideological simplifications: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of local parties. Swiss Political Science Review, 15(2), 241–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation—The left, the right and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 376–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. (2013). Citizens, representatives, and the myth of the decision-making divide. Political Behavior, 35(2), 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagner, P. R., & Pierce, J. C. (1983). Levels of conceptualization and political belief consistency. Micropolitics, 2(3), 311–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamill, R., Lodge, M., & Blake, F. (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 850–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, T. K., & Weber, C. R. (2009). Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames. Political Behavior, 31(4), 537–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. P., Jr. (1939). The inter-relations of political attitudes: II. Consistency in voters’ attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, R. (2010, October 16). Attacks fly at New York debate for senate candidates. The New York Times, p. A17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzon, F. D. (1980). Ideology, constraint, and public opinion: The case of lawyers. American Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R. (2013). Ten misconceptions concerning neurobiology and politics. Perspectives on Politics, 11(2), 475–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. K. (1971). Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of ideological consistency and inconsistency: The impact of political belief system structure on party voting and opinion patterning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. R., & Rosenau, J. N. (1996). Liberals, populists, libertarians, and conservatives: The link between domestic and international affairs. International Political Science Review, 17(1), 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, J. H., & Rapport, L. (Eds.). (1987). Supplement to Max Farrand’s The records of the federal convention of 1787. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, W. G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 178–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). Political attitudes and complexity: Responses from a motivational perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 177–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, T. G. (1990). Religious belief and attitude constraint. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(1), 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K. (1992). Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(4), 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, C. D. (2011). The motivated formation of economic preferences. Retrieved from http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/56029/Johnston_grad.sunysb_0771E_10633.pdf?sequence=1

  • Johnston, C. D., & Wronski, J. (2015). Personality dispositions and political preferences across hard and easy issues. Political Psychology, 36(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. P., Cox, D., & Navarro-Rivera, J. (2013). The 2013 American Values Survey: In search of libertarians in America. Retrieved from http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013.AVS_WEB.pdf

  • Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (2009). “Elective affinities”: On the psychological bases of left-right differences. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003a). Exceptions that prove the rule—Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003a). Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 383–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003b). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Krochik, M., Gaucher, D., & Hennes, E. P. (2009). Can a psychological theory of ideological differences explain contextual variability in the contents of political attitudes? Psychological Inquiry, 20, 183–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Downing, J. W. (1990). Political expertise and the development of attitude consistency. Social Cognition, 8(1), 104–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 99–128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaletsky, A. (2012, August 30). The inverted hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-elections-hypocrisy-idUSBRE87T0Z220120830

  • Keckler, C., & Rozell, M. J. (2015). The libertarian right and the religious right. Perspectives on Political Science, 44(2), 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesebir, P., Phillips, E., Anson, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Motyl, M. (2013, February 11). Ideological consistency across the political spectrum: Liberals are more consistent but conservatives become more consistent when coping with existential threat. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiecolt, K. J., & Nelsen, H. M. (1988). The structuring of political attitudes among liberal and conservative Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27(1), 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K. (1985). Ideology in the 1980 election: Ideological sophistication does matter. Journal of Politics, 47(3), 828–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 59–158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koleva, S. P., & Rip, B. (2009). Attachment style and political ideology: A review of contradictory findings. Social Justice Research, 22, 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R. (2010). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: Evolution and the modular mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H. G., Thomsen, C. J., & Gonzales, M. H. (1997). The development of interattitudinal consistency: The shared-consequences model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 735–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lelkes, Y., & Sniderman, P. M. (2016). The ideological asymmetry of the American party system. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 825–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J. A. (2006). In defense of hypocrisy: Picking sides in the war on virtue. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, R. N., Myers, W. M., & Thornton, J. R. (2015). Political sophistication and the dimensionality of elite and mass attitudes, 1980–2004. The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 368–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 856–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luttbeg, N. R., & Gant, M. M. (1985). The failure of liberal/conservative ideology as a cognitive structure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(1), 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malka, A., & Lelkes, Y. (2010). More than ideology: Conservative-liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research, 23, 156–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A. (1996). Relations among political attitudes, personality, and psychopathology assessed with new measures of libertarianism and conservatism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(4), 469–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 259–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H., Hesli, V. L., & Reisinger, W. M. (1995). Comparing citizen and elite belief systems in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(1), 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, J. Z. (2001). Conservatism: Historical aspects. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 2624–2628). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, H. H., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2013). “Not for all the tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PloS One, 8(4), e59837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norrander, B. (1989). Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. E., & Rahn, W. M. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., & Togeby, L. (2010). Political parties and value consistency in public opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 530–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 609–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2011, May 4). Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Beyond-Red-vs-Blue-The-Political-Typology.pdf

  • Pew Research Center. (2013, June 10). Majority views NSA phone tracking as acceptable anti-terror tactic. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

  • Pew Research Center. (2014, June 26). Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/6-26-14-Political-Typology-release.pdf

  • Pew Research Center. (2015, February 24). Growing support for campaign against ISIS—and possible use of U.S. ground troops. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/02/02-24-15-ISIS-release.pdf

  • Poteat, V. P., & Mereish, E. H. (2012). (Dis)similarity between liberals and conservatives: Predicting variability in group differences on abortion and same-sex marriage rights attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reicherter, D., Aylward, A., Student, A., & Koopman, C. (2010). The psychology of denial in the political context: The case of torture. In S. K. Ogden & A. D. Biebers (Eds.), Psychology of denial (pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, E. W. (2009, July 12). GOP shows hypocrisy toward “family values.” The Philadelphia Tribune, p. 4A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, F. (1995, December 13). Hypocrite hit parade. The New York Times, p. A23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlichter, K. (2013, May 20). Let’s exploit liberal hypocrisy. TownHall.com. Retrieved from http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2013/05/20/lets-exploit-liberal-hypocrisy-n1598400/page/full

  • Schuman, H. (1972). Attitudes vs. actions versus attitudes vs. attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(3), 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. T., Ratliff, K. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Rapid assimilation: Automatically integrating new information with existing beliefs. Social Cognition, 30(2), 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology. Political Psychology, 32(3), 369–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, A. (1997). Limousine liberals, welfare conservatives: On belief, interest, and inconsistency in democratic discourse. Political Theory, 25(4), 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, J. A. (2004). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, J. (2011). Modernism, memory, and desire: Queer cultural production in Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home. TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 22, 77–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Natta, D. (2002, March 23). G.O.P. says checks show Democrats’ hypocrisy. The New York Times, p. A13.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hecker, U., Hahn, U., & Rollings, J. (2016). Spatial representation of coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 853–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, W. (1892). Leaves of grass. New York, NY: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiecko, F. M., & Gau, J. M. (2008). Every life is sacred…kind of: Uncovering the sources of seemingly contradictory public attitudes toward abortion and the death penalty. The Social Science Journal, 45(4), 546–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. D. (1973). A dynamic theory of conservatism. In G. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 257–265). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7(4), 264–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, M. L. (1980). Belief system constraint and policy voting: A test of the unidimensional consistency model. Political Behavior, 2(2), 115–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, M. L. (1987a). Issues of measuring ideological sophistication: Level of conceptualization, attitudinal consistency, and attitudinal stability. Political Behavior, 9(3), 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyckoff, M. L. (1987b). Measures of attitudinal consistency as indicators of ideological sophistication: A reliability and validity assessment. Journal of Politics, 49(1), 148–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbrunnen, J., & Gangl, A. (2008). Conflict, fusion, or coexistence? The complexity of contemporary American conservatism. Political Behavior, 30(2), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science, St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA

    Timothy P. Collins

Authors
  1. Timothy P. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Collins, T.P. (2018). What Is Attitudinal Hypocrisy and Why Does It Matter?. In: Hypocrisy in American Political Attitudes. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54012-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation