The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Abstract
In this 1992 book John Zaller develops a comprehensive theory to explain how people acquire political information from elites and the mass media and convert it into political preferences. Using numerous specific examples, Zaller applies this theory to the dynamics of public opinion on a broad range of subjects, including domestic and foreign policy, trust in government, racial equality, and presidential approval, as well as voting behaviour in U.S. House, Senate, and presidential elections. The thoery is constructed from four basic premises. The first is that individuals differ substantially in their attention to politics and therefore in their exposure to elite sources of political information. The second is that people react critically to political communication only to the extent that they are knowledgeable about political affairs. The third is that people rarely have fixed attitudes on specific issues; rather, they construct 'preference statements' on the fly as they confront each issue raised. The fourth is that, in constructing these statements, people make the greatest use of ideas that are, for various reasons, the most immediately salient to them. Zaller emphasizes the role of political elites in establishing the terms of political discourse in the mass media and the powerful effect of this framing of issues on the dynamics of mass opinion on any given issue over time.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“An obvious concern is that political surveys, such as the ANES, prime people with highly partisan content, which then biases how they think about the other party (Zaller, 1992).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Zaller, 1992
In the citing paper
“El efecto perturbador de las redes sociales sobre el establecimiento de la agenda, por lo tanto, varía según los usuarios que procesan determinada información atrayendo la atención de sus amigos virtuales (Aruguete, 2016; Zaller, 1992).”
From #Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales (2018) · cites this paper as Zaller, 1992
In the citing paper
“In the field of political communication, individuals strongly interested in politics should therefore process political information more thoroughly than individuals less strongly interested in politics (e.g., Zaller, 1992).”
From The detection of political deepfakes (2022) · cites this paper as Zaller, 1992
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,030 of 1,030
The detection of political deepfakes
Appel, M., & Prietzel, F. (2022) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmac008 · Cited by 95
Myrick, R. (2021) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818321000175 · Cited by 91
Measuring exposure to misinformation from political elites on Twitter
Mosleh, M., & Rand, D. G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34769-6 · Cited by 90
The Cultural Orientation of Mass Political Opinion
Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. (2011) · PS: Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096511001326 · Cited by 87
Affective polarization and misinformation belief
Jenke, L. (2024) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09851-w · Cited by 85
The burden of social proof: Shared thresholds and social influence
MacCoun, R. J. (2012) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0027121 · Cited by 84
Arceneaux, K., & Truex, R. (2023) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592722000901 · Cited by 97
Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities
Cacciatore, M. A., Browning, N., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516661090 · Cited by 70
Reconceptualizing Political Knowledge: Race, Ethnicity, and Carceral Violence
Cohen, C. J., & Luttig, M. D. (2020) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592718003857 · Cited by 68
The way we were: How histories of co‐governance alleviate partisan hostility
Horne, W., Adams, J., & Gidron, N. (2023) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/00104140221100197 · Cited by 67
Park, B. (2018) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/sox093 · Cited by 67
Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-Driven Process Model of Candidate Evaluation
Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1993) · Explorations in Political Psychology · doi:10.1215/9780822396697-011 · Cited by 66
White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy
Jardina, A., & Mickey, R. (2022) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/00027162211069730 · Cited by 64
Kozlowski, A. C., & Murphy, J. P. (2021) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102498 · Cited by 58
Too many immigrants? Examining alternative forms of immigrant population innumeracy
Herda, D. (2013) · Sociological Perspectives · doi:10.1525/sop.2013.56.2.213 · Cited by 54
Park, C. S., & Kaye, B. K. (2018) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699017753149 · Cited by 55
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56
Affective polarization and coalition signals
Wagner, M., & Praprotnik, K. (2024) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2023.33 · Cited by 41
Rekker, R., & Harteveld, E. (2024) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/s41269-022-00265-4 · Cited by 32
#Tarifazo. Medios tradicionales y fusión de agenda en redes sociales
Calvo, E., & Aruguete, N. (2018) · InMediaciones de la Comunicación · doi:10.18861/ic.2018.13.1.2831 · Cited by 25
Warring from the virtual to the real: Assessing the public’s threshold for war over cyber security
Kreps, S., & Das, D. (2017) · Research & Politics · doi:10.1177/2053168017715930 · Cited by 18
Mullainathan, S., Washington, E., & Azari, J. R. (2010) · Political Representation · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813146.014 · Cited by 15
Typecast: A Routine Mental Shortcut Causes Party Stereotyping
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2023) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09780-8 · Cited by 14
Carr-Cornish, S., Ashworth, P., Gardner, J., & Fraser, S. J. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9964-9 · Cited by 12
Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics, Still?
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2015) · American Gridlock · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316287002.006 · Cited by 12
The Political Dynamics of Partisan Polarization
Schmidt, E. R., Carmines, E. G., & Sniderman, P. M. (2025) · doi:10.1017/9781009472760 · Cited by 10
Culture wars, perception gap and affective polarization: an approach from the Spanish case
Rojo Martínez, J. M., Crespo Martínez, I., & Mora Rodríguez, A. (2023) · OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.14198/obets.21976 · Cited by 7
Selection Neglect and Political Beliefs
Brundage, M., Little, A. T., & You, S. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/p49at · Cited by 7
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1
Bail, C. A., Guay, B., Maloney, E., Combs, A., Hillygus, D. S., Merhout, F., Freelon, D., & Volfovsky, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1906420116 · Cited by 224
“Political messages tend to have “min-imal effects” because the individuals most likely to be exposed to persuasive messages are also those who are most entrenched in their views (17).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Zaller, J. R.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zaller, John R.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1992-08-28
- OpenAlex
- W4300170376
- Cited by
- 7,785
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 392 · 2025: 487 · 2024: 402 · 2023: 360 · 2022: 461 · 2021: 456 · 2020: 483 · 2019: 463 · 2018: 381 · 2017: 353 · 2016: 297 · 2015: 306 · 2014: 283 · 2013: 248 · 2012: 287
- FWCI
- 89.00
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- mass opinion, political information acquisition, political elites, mass media, political preferences, public opinion dynamics, political attention, political knowledge, salience, framing effects, political discourse, public trust in government, racial equality, presidential approval, voting behavior, United States elections
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
