In Search of Rational Government: What Political Preference Function Studies Measure and Assume

1994 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Bullock
Author(s):  
David M. Wineroither ◽  
Rudolf Metz

AbstractThis report surveys four approaches that are pivotal to the study of preference formation: (a) the range, validity, and theoretical foundations of explanations of political preferences at the individual and mass levels, (b) the exploration of key objects of preference formation attached to the democratic political process (i.e., voting in competitive elections), (c) the top-down vs. bottom-up character of preference formation as addressed in leader–follower studies, and (d) gene–environment interaction and the explanatory weight of genetic predisposition against the cumulative weight of social experiences.In recent years, our understanding of sites and processes of (individual) political-preference formation has substantially improved. First, this applies to a greater variety of objects that provide fresh insight into the functioning and stability of contemporary democracy. Second, we observe the reaffirmation of pivotal theories and key concepts in adapted form against widespread challenge. This applies to the role played by social stratification, group awareness, and individual-level economic considerations. Most of these findings converge in recognising economics-based explanations. Third, research into gene–environment interplay rapidly increases the number of testable hypotheses and promises to benefit a wide range of approaches already taken and advanced in the study of political-preference formation.


1970 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene F. Summers ◽  
Doyle P. Johnson ◽  
Richard L. Hough ◽  
Kathryn A. Veatch
Keyword(s):  

Social Forces ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. G. Rojek

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-214
Author(s):  
Mayela Zambrano

AbstractThe public and commercial spheres constantly address the largest ethnic minority in the United States, people with ancestry or from a Latin American country, as a homogenous group under the ethnopolitical terms “Latinos,” “Hispanics,” and even “Mexicans.” This panethnic view, and the negative stereotypes associated with it, was especially visible during the 2016 presidential election. While the majority of Latinos found Donald Trump’s remarks on “Mexicans” offensive to the Latin community as a whole, a large number of people still supported his opinions, even those belonging to the “Latino” community. Even more so, women of Latino heritage still supported a nominee that went against their own advance in society given his constant misogynistic comments. In this essay, I analyze the groundings for this apparent contradiction in the preference for said candidate. I argue that these women’s political preference is a tool with which they build their identity in the U.S. Besides, I explore the ways in which individuals linguistically construct their own identity in three ways (i) by actively doing the identification instead of merely receiving it by an unknown agent; (ii) by choosing the self-representation of their preference, and (iii) by finding commonalities and bonding with other individuals they deem part of their group. Through this approach, I analyze semiotic processes, such as intertextuality, use of pronouns, and discourse alignment, that are used to construct identifications of the self that go beyond imposed categories, such as gender and ethnicity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document