Philip Converse

In The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics, Converse challenged the notion that ordinary citizens share the sophisticated ideological structure in political thinking seen among political elites. He argues first that belief systems are ultimately about "constraint"—if one's view changes on an issue central to the belief system, that change shifts attitudes throughout the network of other views when constraint is high. In contrast, other views do not change in a low-constraint belief system when another attitude changes. Converse says belief systems are constructed by political elites, who decide the issue views that go together, and he says political information is key for determining whether members of the mass public are capable of following these connections in their own thinking.

Next, Converse empirically analyzes belief systems in the mass public using survey data from 1956, 1958, and 1960 American National Election Studies. He proceeds in four parts. In the first section, he shows that, when asked to describe their views on the political parties and candidates, very few Americans rely on abstract principles (possibly a liberal-conservative continuum) or other signs of ideological thinking ("ideologues"). In a second category, labeled "near-ideologue", Converse groups people that peripherally mention some abstract principles used to guide their decisions, but they may not have placed much evaluative dependence on the principle or showed evidence of misunderstanding. Using the idea of a yardstick as a model, Converse explains that an ideologue would explicitly reference the yardstick when explaining their reasoning, while a "near-ideologue" may imply the existence of a yardstick, but could use it incorrectly or show obvious misunderstanding. Instead, the largest category of people think about politics and parties in terms of "group benefits" based on which prominent social groups they see as advantaged or disadvantaged by Democrats or Republicans. These social group ties tend to be stronger and more prominent when the groups are considered "visible", such as a church, union, or race, as opposed to an "invisible" social group, like social class. It is important for the masses to be cognizant of their group to see this "group benefits" category appear. Others thought about parties based on the "nature of the times" (issue- or party-driven) or "no issue content." In sum, regular people don't talk about politics in ideological ways.

In the second section, Converse shows that when Americans are asked explicitly to explain the terms "liberal" and "conservative," many struggle to link those terms to the political parties and to give meaningful reasons for those pairings. This suggests a lack of ideological understanding and again pushed against the notion of an ideological public. Converse gives an example using the following statement- "Even though it may hurt the position of the Negro in the South, state governments should be able to decide who can vote and who cannot". While this statement may seem to be focused on the rights of African Americans for most Americans, it is truly about state versus federal rights. This lack of understanding supports Converse's view of a non-ideological public. In the third section, Converse presents evidence that issue preferences in the public show low constraint, as seen in low correlations between issue pairs. This stands in contrast to relatively high constraint observed in the views of political elites. Finally, Converse shows that political attitudes are highly unstable in the mass public over time. On some issues, the public provides such inconsistent responses over two and four years that they appear to be responding almost as if at random. While this trend is evident with the general public/masses, it is not evident with the elite group. If ordinary people had idiosyncratic belief systems, he argues their views would be stable over time. The instability he observes is the final strike against the notion of an ideologically sophisticated public.

Converse concludes that mass publics generally lack the structured belief systems seen in political elites, and he speculates that this finding from mid-century America applies broadly across publics in other places and eras. Converse summarizes by stating that the mass public has a very narrow understanding of political issue and vote accordingly, thus explaining the instability of voting trends among the masses versus the elites.

In a 1970 essay, Converse calls these highly unstable political views "non-attitudes."[8]

Converse's book Political Representation in France with Roy Pierce on mass politics in France draws similar conclusions about belief systems.[9]

Converse also co-authored The American Voter with Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. One of the book's primary contributions was the introduction of the social-psychological concept of partisan identity and investigations into its effects on political behavior. Partisanship, they say, functions more as an attachment to a social group than as a mere summary of political values and attitudes, and it is the fundamental driver in vote choice and much else. This theory became known as the Michigan Model. They also find that citizens who choose not to identify with a political party are generally disengaged from politics and low in political knowledge, in contrast to idealized views celebrating the independent voter. Evidence for the book was drawn from analysis of the 1956–1968 National Election Studies panel. The American Voter also assesses factors that influence voter turnout, the influence of electoral rules, effects from social and economic conditions, the roles of group identity and socio-economic position, and it introduces some of the initial analysis that underlies Converse's 1964 "Nature of Belief Systems" essay.[10] The book also introduces other concepts like the "funnel of causality" modeling the long-term and short-term forces leading eventually to an individual's vote, and the "normal vote" model relating partisanship and turnout in election outcomes.[6]