The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate
Abstract
An enduring concern about democracies is that citizens conform too readily to the policy views of elites in their own parties, even to the point of ignoring other information about the policies in question. This article presents two experiments that undermine this concern, at least under one important condition. People rarely possess even a modicum of information about policies; but when they do, their attitudes seem to be affected at least as much by that information as by cues from party elites. The experiments also measure the extent to which people think about policy. Contrary to many accounts, they suggest that party cues do not inhibit such thinking. This is not cause for unbridled optimism about citizens' ability to make good decisions, but it is reason to be more sanguine about their ability to use information about policy when they have it.
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
“Consistent with this view, a growing number of empirical studies have uncovered evidence that people update their political attitudes and beliefs in line with evidence (e.g., refs. 4,13,27–29) and arguments23,30,31 presented to them.”
From Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“However, follow-up research indicated that this was true for Republican but not Democratic supporters86.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [86]
Citations
Cites
An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Banfield, E. C., & Downs, A. J. (1958) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2109186 · Cited by 18,558
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
DeLamater, J., & Ward, A. (2013) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,590
Book Review: The Psychology of Attitudes
Chakravarti, D., Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151869 · Cited by 7,173
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
Kenski, H. C., & Zaller, J. R. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074664 · Cited by 5,150
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 1×
“(Some authors have already made a start: e.g., Druckman 2001, 72n11; Iyengar et al. 2008, 195; and Jost et al. 2003.)”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Estlund, 2007, Democratic Authority
- Bishop, 2005, The Illusion of Public Opinion
- Fenno, 1978, Home Style: House Members in Their Districts
- Cacioppo, 1981, Cognitive Assessment, 309
- Sniderman, 2000, Elements of Reason
- Kuklinski, 2000, Elements of Reason
- Graber, 1984, Processing the News
- Iyengar, 2000, Elements of Reason
- 10.1515/9781400830480 · DOI
- 2004, The State of the News Media 2004
- Browning, 1992, Ordinary Men
- Eagly, 1993, The Psychology of Attitudes
- Lieb David A. 2005 April 7. “Missouri Medicaid Cuts Sent to Blunt.” Associated Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation
DRUCKMAN, J. N., PETERSON, E., & SLOTHUUS, R. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055412000500 · Cited by 1,569
The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs About Politics
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12394 · Cited by 1,183
“…show that the effectiveness of frames regarding welfare and trade policy depends on the party to which the frames are attributed; specifically, participants are more persuaded by frames from their own party than by identical frames from the opposing party (also see Kam, 2005; cf., Bullock, 2011).”
BackgroundExpressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity
HUDDY, L., MASON, L., & AARØE, L. (2015) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055414000604 · Cited by 1,415
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891
“…factors that moderate the likelihood of partisan motivated reasoning including political sophistication, opinion strength, message repetition, information search, and the level of elite polarization in a given context (e.g., see Taber and Lodge 2006 3 ; Bullock 2011; Druckman et al. 2012, 2013).”
BackgroundPolitical Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12164 · Cited by 722
“Second, when parties lead opinion, how do parties work to influence opinions? Much of the existing literature sees party identification as the basis of public opinion formation, but scholars have presented a number of distinct ways of conceiving parties, and there is little agreement on how parties influence citizens’…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- BULLOCK, J. G.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- BULLOCK, JOHN G.
- ORCID
- BULLOCK, JOHN G.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 496-515
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W3124069454
- Cited by
- 777
- References
- 103
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 154.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- elite influence, public opinion, party cues, policy information, party identification, democratic decision-making
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
