IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v58y2010i1p66-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fictitious Issues Revisited: Political Interest, Knowledge and the Generation of Nonattitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Sturgis
  • Patten Smith

Abstract

It has long been suspected that, when asked to provide opinions on matters of public policy, significant numbers of those surveyed do so with only the vaguest understanding of the issues in question. In this article, we present the results of a study which demonstrates that a significant minority of the British public are, in fact, willing to provide evaluations of non‐existent policy issues. In contrast to previous American research, which has found such responses to be most prevalent among the less educated, we find that the tendency to provide ‘pseudo‐opinions’ is positively correlated with self‐reported interest in politics. This effect is itself moderated by the context in which the political interest item is administered; when this question precedes the fictitious issue item, its effect is greater than when this order is reversed. Political knowledge, on the other hand, is associated with a lower probability of providing pseudo‐opinions, though this effect is weaker than that observed for political interest. Our results support the view that responses to fictitious issue items are not generated at random, via some ‘mental coin flip’. Instead, respondents actively seek out what they consider to be the likely meaning of the question and then respond in their own terms, through the filter of partisan loyalties and current political discourses.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Sturgis & Patten Smith, 2010. "Fictitious Issues Revisited: Political Interest, Knowledge and the Generation of Nonattitudes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 66-84, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:58:y:2010:i:1:p:66-84
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00773.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00773.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00773.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zaller, John, 1991. "Information, Values, and Opinion," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1215-1237, December.
    2. Converse, Philip E., 1974. "Comment: The Status of Nonattitudes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(2), pages 650-660, June.
    3. Graeff, Timothy R., 2002. "Uninformed response bias in telephone surveys," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 251-259, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Florian Stoeckel & Vittorio Mérola & Jack Thompson & Benjamin Lyons & Jason Reifler, 2024. "Public perceptions and misperceptions of political authority in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 42-62, March.
    2. Patrick Sturgis & Caroline Roberts & Patten Smith, 2014. "Middle Alternatives Revisited," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(1), pages 15-38, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Mahapatra, Krushna & Nair, Gireesh & Gustavsson, Leif, 2011. "Swedish energy advisers' perceptions regarding and suggestions for fulfilling homeowner expectations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4264-4273, July.
    5. Tevfik Murat Yildirim, 2022. "Stability and change in the public’s policy agenda: a punctuated equilibrium approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 337-350, June.
    6. Anders Westholm, 1987. "Measurement error in causal analysis of panel data: Attenuated versus inflated relationships," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 3-20, March.
    7. Fullerton, Thomas M., Jr. & Molina, Angel L., Jr. & Pisani, Michael J., 2009. "Peso Acceptance Patterns in El Paso," MPRA Paper 17900, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 19 Jun 2009.
    8. Amihai Glazer & Bernard Grofman, 1989. "Why representatives are ideologists though voters are not," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 29-39, April.
    9. Hasan DanaeeFard & Tayebeh Abbasi, 2021. "Why and How Does Policy Change over Time: a Narrative Explanation from Iran," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 355-376, June.
    10. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    11. Stephanie Stray, 2009. "Lies, damned lies and statistics: the accuracy of survey responses," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 161-171, January.
    12. Catherine Chen & Bo MacInnis & Matthew Waltman & Jon A. Krosnick, 2021. "Public opinion on climate change in the USA: to what extent can it be nudged by questionnaire design features?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Feser, Daniel & Bizer, Kilian & Rudolph-Cleff, Annette & Schulze, Joachim, 2016. "Energy audits in a private firm environment: Energy efficiency consultants' cost calculation for innovative technologies in the housing sector," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 275, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    14. Kaminski, Jonathan, 2008. "Wealth, Living Standards and Perceptions in a Cotton Economy: Evidence from the Cotton Reform in Burkina Faso," Discussion Papers 45780, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
    15. Rodolfo Apreda, 2012. "A clinical approach to the governance of conflict-systems," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 491, Universidad del CEMA.
    16. Carina Cornesse & Annelies G. Blom, 2023. "Response Quality in Nonprobability and Probability-based Online Panels," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(2), pages 879-908, May.
    17. Denise L. Anthony & Douglas D. Heckathorn & Steven M. Maser, 1994. "Rational Rhetoric in Politics," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(4), pages 489-518, October.
    18. Richard M. Coughlin & Charles Lockhart, 1998. "Grid-Group Theory and Political Ideology," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 33-58, January.
    19. Niladri Sekhar Dhar & Shreya Nupur & Meghna Dutta, 2022. "COVID‐19 Induced Income Loss among Migrant Workers: Evidence from Eight Villages of Bihar," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 41(4), pages 325-346, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:58:y:2010:i:1:p:66-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.