Voter Behavior

The Microsociological Model

The microsociological model was developed in the early 1940s by Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues, and its formulation in The People's Choice first appeared at the end of World War II. A milestone of modern electoral research, it was also criticized for its methodological and empirical deficiencies, and these critiques informed the design of the follow-up study Voting.

The motivating question for Lazarsfeld and his colleagues can be found in the subtitle of The People's Choice: How do voters develop concrete vote intentions over the course of an election? Lazarsfeld et al. investigated this question by conducting an intensive study of Erie County, Ohio, during the 1940 presidential election. They interviewed a representative sample up to seven times over the course of the campaign with regard to vote intention, evaluation of the candidates, and assessment of the major political issues. By doing so the researchers sought to determine how individual voters developed their political attitudes over time and the impact of the campaign on this process.

Lazarsfeld et al. rapidly determined that sociostructural variables, above all socioeconomic status and religious affiliation, strongly influenced vote intention for both major American parties. Taken together with a voter's living situation (urban or rural), the researchers constructed an “index of political predisposition” with an extremely accurate predictive capability. Blue-collar workers and Catholics disproportionately trended toward the Democrats, but Protestants and middle-class voters predominantly supported the Republicans, with the interaction of both variables strengthening these effects.

With muted reservations, the authors concluded that the political preferences of their respondents were largely socially determined. For many voters, party choice was fixed months before the election, and new information was used selectively to reinforce rather than challenge or update prior opinions. These findings were far removed from the ideal of responsible democratic citizens painstakingly informing themselves about the various parties and candidates before coming to a decision based on sober reflection.

As they went on, however, Lazarsfeld et al. could only tentatively explain why sociostructural variables influenced vote choice so strongly, despite the relative anonymity of individual members to these large, impersonal structures. The authors argued implicitly that sociostructural variables could be viewed as indicators of membership in a mostly homogenous social environment of friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues with similar political views. This web of interactions is then capable of reinforcing wavering individual opinions through social pressure. In these circumstances, so-called opinion leaders play an important role by intensively informing themselves about political events through the media and then passing their observations on to less interested or less educated citizens. To describe this relationship Lazarsfeld et al. formed their famous “two-step flow” hypothesis of political communication.

...