The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting
Abstract
This article contrasts short-term self-interest and longstanding symbolic attitudes as determinants of (1) voters' attitudes toward government policy on four controversial issues (unemployment, national health insurance, busing, and law and order), and (2) issue voting concerning those policy areas. In general, we found the various self-interest measures to have very little effect in determining either policy preferences or voting behavior. In contrast, symbolic attitudes (liberal or conservative ideology, party identification, and racial prejudice) had major effects. Nor did self-interest play much of a role in creating “issue publics” that were particularly attentive to, informed about, or constrained in their attitudes about these specific policy issues. Conditions that might facilitate more self-interested political attitudes, specifically having privatistic (rather than public-regarding) personal values, perceiving the policy area as a major national problem, being high in political sophistication, perceiving the government as responsive, or having a sense of political efficacy, were also explored, but had no effect. The possibility that some long-term self-interest might be reflected in either group membership or in symbolic attitudes themselves is examined. While such possibilities cannot be definitively rejected, problems with interpreting standard demographic findings as self-interest effects are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Mutz, D. C. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1718155115 · Cited by 1,236
Group Conflict, Prejudice, and the Paradox of Contemporary Racial Attitudes
Bobo, L. (1988) · Eliminating Racism · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0818-6_5 · Cited by 503
THE CENTRALITY OF RACE IN AMERICAN POLITICS
Hutchings, V. L., & Valentino, N. A. (2004) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104859 · Cited by 493
Marcus, G. E. (2000) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.221 · Cited by 468
Personalizing Politics: A Congruency Model of Political Preference.
Caprara, G. V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.7.581 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1980-09
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 670-684
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2099274242
- Cited by
- 922
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 113.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1958149
- The paper
- Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M. (1980). Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958149
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.