Ideology and Primary Group Membership Influences on Voting Behavior

Goldberg (1967) implies in the title of his critique that Zippel and Norman (1966) were postulating that primary group membership rather than ideology determines political choices. This is noc quire correct. The argument presented by Zippel and Norman was thar most voters make their decisions according to the influence of their social environment but that some voters, a small minority, do place ideological considerations above past primary group memberships and that these Ss score higher on F and D scales than other Ss. The data on which these statements were made came from a sample of 381 students chosen from a wide range of college groups and courses at the University of New Mexico. The Goldberg and Scark (1965) sample consisted of 34 female psychology students in Connecticut who were preselected because they ind~cated a moderate to high degree of intensity of attitude (ego involvement?) for and against the presidential candidates. In the present Goldberg (1967) critique, data are based on recontacting 30 of these Ss. It would be instructive to know the number of Ss that were rejected by Goldberg and Stark in their initial study because they failed to demonstrate a high degree of ego involvement with the candidates, so that an index of the proportion of Ss who could be classified as ego involved could be determined. Similarly, it would be helpful in this brief dispute had Zippel and Norman obtained some measure of ego involvement from their Ss comparable ro that obtained by Goldberg and Stark. The failure of Goldberg to replicate the finding of Zippel and Norman that those Ss who voted contrary to their stated party affiliacions scored higher on F and D scales mighr nor be a contradiction at all but is most probably related to the nature of the samples. Analysis of the data from the smdies in question makes it clear that much important information is lacking that would enable the abstraction of definitive conclusions. Barring regional sampling differences (which may affect results), data are needed from high and low ego-involvement Ss preferring each candidate along with sufficient numbers of switchers and non-switchers for each of these groups. In other words, that a more elaborate design is required seems clear from both Goldberg's and our findings. Over-all, we agree with Goldberg that the 1968 elections should provide Opportunity for a more definitive test. Whereas both studies found more Republicans switching in 1964, if present (March, 1966) polls augur anything, we should expect more Dernocrats switching in 1968

Group (periodic table · Ideology · Physics · Political science · Politics · Primary (astronomy · Voting · Voting behavior · Academic Freedom and Politics · Chemistry · Law · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology

• Johnson or Goldwater

  Open Access•Philip A Goldberg, Milton J Stark•Psychological Reports•1965

  Add to list

• Ideology vs Primary Group Membership as Determinants of Political Choice

  Open Access•Philip A Goldberg•Psychological Reports•1967

  Add to list

• Party Switching, Authoritarianism, and Dogmatism in the 1964 Election

  Open Access•Bert Zippel, Ralph D Norman•Psychological Reports•1966

  Add to list