How Americans Judge Presidents: A Typology

Abstract

This study uses depth interviews to do what survey research alone cannot: mine the underpinnings of presidential approval. Past depth interview studies show that intensive study of small nonrandom samples “can provide insights into patterns of conceptualization present throughout society” (Graber, 1988: 13). I use such a sample here - 179 ordinary Americans - to map this under-explored terrain.Early interviews interpreted in the light of polls and published scholarship suggested that different groups of individuals might be reasoning in different ways when asked to evaluate presidential performance. This prompted the typology hypothesis that is presented and tested here. Coding confirmed the prediction of four mutually exclusive and exhaustive types. This coding fit, the link to literature and a purposive sample combine to support a claim to external validity comparable to such exemplary small-N studies as Lane (1962) and Fenno (1978).The typology challenges the conventional political science wisdom that the mass public must fall back on low-information rationality if it is to hold the president accountable. The large proportion of vigilant and well-informed respondents (The typology’s Instrumentals and Ideologues) shows that there is potential for a more ambitious brand of citizen oversight.