Intensity of Opinion and the Organization of Political Attitudes

• Author: Frederick D. Herzon
• DOI: 10.1177/106591297502800105
• Published date: 01 March 1975
• Date: 01 March 1975
• Subject Matter: Articles

72

INTENSITY

OF

OPINION

AND

THE

ORGANIZATION

OF

POLITICAL

ATTITUDES

FREDERICK

D.

HERZON

Temple

University

T THE

present

time,

a

good

deal

of

work

is

being

done

on

the

nature,

stability,

and

organization

of

political

attitudes

in

the

mass

public.’

~L

~L

Two

important

problems

in

this

area

are

how,

if

at

all,

do

people

organize

their

political

attitudes

and

what

factors

lead

to

organization

among

political

attitudes.

This

paper

undertakes

an

investigation

of

one

factor,

inten-

sity

of

opinion,

as

it

relates

to

the

organization

and

development

of

the

political

attitudes.

INTENSITY

It

has

long

been

recognized

that

attitudes

have

three

components:

the

affective,

the

cognitive

and

the

behavioral.

The

affective

component

refers

to

the

emotional

feeling

directed

toward

the

object

of

the

attitude;

the

cognitive

component

refers

to

the

beliefs

(or

knowledge)

about

the

object;

and

the

be-

havioral

component,

to

predispositions

of

action

toward

the

object.

Intensity

of

opinion

has

been

defined

as

the

strength

or

depth

of

feeling

a

person

attaches

to

his

opinion.’

Generally

speaking,

then,

opinion

intensity

is

the

strength

of

the

affective

component

of

attitude.

There

is

reason

to

believe

that

intensity

has

important

effects

upon

at-

titudinal

organization.

Rosenberg

has

shown

how

the

affective

component

can

organize

the

nature

of

the

&dquo;knowledge&dquo;

or

&dquo;beliefs&dquo;

in

the

cognitive

compon-

NOT :

I

wish

to

thank

David

W.

Brady

and

Denis

G.

Sullivan

for

their

comments

on

an

earlier

draft

of

this

paper.

I

also

wish

to

thank

John

C.

Pierce

and

Stephen

E.

Bennett

who

kindly

sent

me

pre-publication

copies

of

their

papers

cited

below.

1

Some

of

the

major

works

in

this

area

are:

Philip

E.

Converse,

"The

Nature

of

Belief

Systems

in

Mass

Publics,"

in

David

E.

Apter,

ed.,

Ideology

and

Discontent

(Glencoe:

The

Free

Press,

1964),

pp.

206-61;

Philip

E.

Converse,

"Attitudes

and

Non-Attitudes:

Con-

tinuation

of

a

Dialogue,"

in

Edward

R.

Tufte,

ed.,

The

Quantitative

Analysis

of

Social

Problems

(Reading,

Mass. :

Addison-Wesley,

1970),

pp.

168-89;

John

C.

Pierce

and

Douglas

D.

Rose,

"Non-Attitudes

and

American

Public

Opinion:

The

Examination

of

a

Thesis,"

American

Political

Science

Review,

68

(June

1974),

626-49.

See

also

comment

by

Philip

Converse

and

rejoinder

by

Pierce

and

Rose,

pp.

650-66;

Bernard

Hennessy,

"A

Headnote

on

the

Existence

and

Study

of

Political

Attitudes,"

in

Dan

D.

Nimo

and

Charles

M.

Bonjean,

eds.,

Political

Attitudes

and

Public

Opinion

(New

York:

David

McKay

Co.,

1972),

pp.

27-40;

Stephen

E.

Bennett,

"Consistency

Among

the

Publics

Social

Welfare

Policy

Attitudes

in

the

1960’s,"

American

Journal

of

Political

Science,

17

(August

1973), 544-70;

David

E.

Repass,

"Issue

Salience

and

Party

Choice,"

American

Political

Science

Review,

65

( June

1971),

389-400;

Angus

Campbell,

Philip

E.

Converse,

Warren

E.

Miller,

and

Donald

Stokes,

The

American

Voter

(New

York:

Wiley,

1960),

pp.

168-265.

2

Milton

J.

Rosenberg

and

Carl

I.

Hovland,

"Cognitive,

Affective

and

Behavioral

Compon-

ents

of

Attitudes,"

in

Carl

I.

Hovland

and

Milton

J.

Rosenberg,

eds.,

Attitude

Organiza-

tion

and

Change

(New

Haven:

Yale

University

Press,

1960),

p.

3.

3

See,

for

example,

V.

O.

Key,

Jr.,

Public

Opinion

and

American

Democracy

(New

York:

Knopf,

1961),

p.

208;

and

Daniel

Katz,

"The

Measurement

of

Intensity,"

in

Hadley

Cantril,

Gauging

Public

Opinion

(Princeton:

Princeton

University

Press,

1944),

p.

51.