Policy calibration and policy acceptability: assumptions, evidence, and practical implications

Figures & data

Table 1. Theories of the formation of attitudes toward policies.

	Assumptions	Subtype	Authors	Empirical expectations on specific policy attitudes
1. Non-attitudes or weak attitudes	Attitudes on specific policy issues are weak; no internal structure can be found.		Converse (2006) and Zaller (1992)	No structure and consistency in specific policy attitudes
2. Top-down models^a	Attitudes on specific policy issues change only when higher-order policy attitudes change	2A. Hierarchical model	Hall (1993), Hurwitz and Peffley (1987), and Peffley and Hurwitz (1985)	Almost impossible to manipulate with new information
		2B. Constrain models	Jenkins‐Smith et al. 2014)	Only secondary aspects open to change (that do not compromise values)
3. Pluralism models	Attitudes on specific policy issues change depending on the structure of higher-order policy attitudes	3A. Complexity model	Sniderman, Brody, and Tetlock (1991) and Tetlock (1986)	It depends on the structure of higher-order aspects.
		3B. Anarchic models	Carstensen (2011)	Specific policy attitudes are easy to manipulate with new information

Source: Author.

^a Also labeled as nested model, hierarchical model, and paradigm model.

Converse, P. E. 2006. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964).” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810608443650.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zaller, J. R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

Hall, P. A. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hurwitz, J., and M. Peffley. 1987. “How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model.” American Political Science Review 81 (4): 1099–1120. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962580.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peffley, M. A., and J. Hurwitz. 1985. “A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 871–890. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111185.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jenkins‐Smith, H., C. L. Silva, K. Gupta, and J. T. Ripberger. 2014. “Belief System Continuity and Change in Policy Advocacy Coalitions: Using Cultural Theory to Specify Belief Systems, Coalitions, and Sources of Change.” Policy Studies Journal 42 (4): 484–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12071.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sniderman, P. M., R. A. Brody, and P. E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E. 1986. “A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (4): 819–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.819.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carstensen, M. B. 2011. “Paradigm Man Vs. The Bricoleur: Bricolage as an Alternative Vision of Agency in Ideational Change.” European Political Science Review 3 (1): 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000342.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar