The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Political Legitimacy
Abstract
Political legitimacy is a key concept in both macro and micro theories. Pioneers in survey-based research on alienation and system support envisioned addressing macro questions about legitimacy with the sophisticated empiricism of individual-level methodology but failed; and a succession of innovations in item wording and questionnaire construction only led to an excessive concern with measurement issues at the individual level. I return to an enumeration of the informational requirements for assessing legitimacy in hopes of finding a conceptualization that better utilizes available survey indicators to tap relevant macro dimensions. I specify formal measurement models for both conventional and revised conceptualizations of legitimacy orientations and compare the fit of the two models systematically on data from the U.S. electorate. The revised model appears preferable on both theoretical and empirical grounds.
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
Cites
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
Fenichel Pitkin, H. (1967) · doi:10.1525/9780520340503 · Cited by 5,162
The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices
HOELTER, J. W. (1983) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003 · Cited by 1,624
Cited by
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 · Cited by 2,381
Political Trust and Trustworthiness
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475 · Cited by 2,190
The Psychology of Legitimacy: A Relational Perspective on Voluntary Deference to Authorities
Tyler, T. R. (1997) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4 · Cited by 755
Conceptualizing Legitimacy, Measuring Legitimating Beliefs
Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764209338797 · Cited by 729
Public‐Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do
Bozeman, B. (2002) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00165 · Cited by 550
Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance
Grimes, M. (2006) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x · Cited by 224
National Identity and Political Trust
Berg, L., & Hjerm, M. (2010) · Perspectives on European Politics and Society · doi:10.1080/15705854.2010.524403 · Cited by 158
Assessing public value failure in government adoption of artificial intelligence
Schiff, D. S., Schiff, K. J., & Pierson, P. (2022) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12742 · Cited by 155
Haines, E. L., & Jost, J. T. (2000) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1023/a:1026481205719 · Cited by 120
The Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Trust in Government
Nicholls, K., & Picou, J. S. (2013) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00932.x · Cited by 84
“He’s not my prime minister!”: negative party identification and satisfaction with democracy
Spoon, J.-J., & Kanthak, K. (2019) · Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2019.1666271 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Weatherford, M. S.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 149-166
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W1966754005
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 24.87
- 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
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.
