A Reconsideration of the Effects of Information on Partisan Stability

This article re-examines the relationship between "information flow" and "partisan stability" by using alternative measures of "information flow." The analysis of data drawn from SRC surveys from 1952 to 1972 indicates that there is no relationship between the flow of information and the stability of partisan electors. Cliff Zukin is Assistant Professor of Political Science, The Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. The author wishes to thank Professors Herb Weisberg, Kristi Andersen, and Herb Asher of The Ohio State University for their comments on earlier versions of this article. POQ 41 (1977) 244-254 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.83 on Fri, 13 May 2016 06:52:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms INFORMATION AND PARTISAN STABILITY 245 through any of the media. Thus the revision of the floating voter hypothesis: The more information an individual takes in the more stable his partisan behavior; however, if no new information is encountered there is no stimulus of "short-term forces," and the long-term force of partisan identification is unimpeded in transforming partisan preference into partisan vote. This reconceptualization of the floating voter hypothesis was investigated by Dreyer (1971-72), who tested data from 1956 to 1968 in addition to Converse's 1952 data. Dreyer found that the hypothesis did not hold in any year except 1952. In all other years the "no media" people exhibited less stability than those who received one, two, or any other number of media. This article raises two questions concerning the measurement of information. First, a simple counting of "the number of media used" may not be an accurate indicator of "the amount of informational media used." The respondent who tuned in the Democratic telethon to see a favorite entertainer and heard a campaign story on her car radio is assigned the same score in the Converse-Dreyer schema as the respondent who scours the New York Times daily and religiously watches the evening news. The number of media attended and the amount of informational media attended are not, of course, independent terms-the individual who monitors four media has probably acquired more information than the individual who has monitored a single medium. Although Converse and Dreyer employ "number of media used" as a measure of the amount of information an individual received about the campaign, there may be a better indicator available. In every year, save 1956, the interview schedule for the SRC election studies has included questions on the four mass media (television, newspapers, radio, and magazines) which ask not simply whether a given medium was attended, but how often it was attended. Thus it is possible to create an "amount of media used" scale, based on frequency, which seems to get more directly at the amount of information an individual is exposed to than does the Converse-Dreyer "number of media used" indicator. The second point is that "all media are not created equal." By simply counting the number of media used Converse and Dreyer ignore the possibility that media are qualitatively different. Does the individual who receives information only from the newspaper get the same amount or the same\type of information as the individual who uses only television? Both, in the Converse-Dreyer classification scheme, are "one-medium people." This argument is well grounded in recent empirical research. Television is rated by the public as "more credible" than other media (Roper, 1973), is seen as less biased than newspapers (Robinson, 1972), and is said to give the clearest understanding of candidates and issues in an election This content downloaded from 207.46.13.83 on Fri, 13 May 2016 06:52:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms