Abstract
At first sight, Danish survey data seem to support Philip Converse's theory on (the absence of) coherent belief systems in mass publics. An alternative model is presented, however, accounting for the same data; the existence, within a larger population, of “belief publics’ holding differently structured belief systems, may distort measurement of belief coherence. The data support this model; different belief structures do exist. Finally, there is no sign of ‘elites' with more coherent belief systems within the sample, although such elites should exist according to Converse's theory. Therefore, the model of ‘belief publics' is regarded as the more plausible explanation for the apparent absence of patterned beliefs. The article is primarily concerned with methodological aspects of belief systems analysis, and warns against taking national correlations of opinions at face value; especially the possible existence of ‘split correlations' may seriously distort measurement of, and theorizing on, belief systems.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
