Half a Century of Cross-Pressures: A Thesis Reconsidered
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00374 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Research Note: |
Research Note:
Half a Century of Cross-pressures:
a Thesis Reconsidered
Sten Sparre Nilson
University of Oslo, Norway
Cross-pressure was introduced as a concept in political analysis half a century ago. While differ-
ent forms of political cross-pressure have been noted, they are generally considered to have the
effect of making citizens withdraw from politics. However, this conclusion is not always supported
by data. A modified proposition is suggested in order to account for other reactions to cross-
pressure that have been registered from time to time.
The psychological concept of cross-pressure was introduced as a tool in political
analysis when Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his co-workers made a panel study in con-
nection with the American presidential election of 1940, interviewing a represen-
tative sample of the electorate during the campaign in Erie County, Ohio. A report
was published in the form of a book, The People’s Choice. The behaviour of individ-
uals in a situation of cross-pressure was a theme to which the authors reserved
some pages (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948, pp. 56–64).
In a complex society, people do not belong to one group only, they have a number
of social affiliations. In Erie County, the Protestant vote ‘was allied to the Repub-
licans and the Catholic vote more strongly Democratic’. Individuals in higher
income brackets ‘tended to vote Republican and their poorer neighbours to
vote Democratic’. But some individuals were, for example, both prosperous and
Catholic. They were said to be under cross-pressure. There were other examples
as well, some presented in more strictly political terms. Persons who had voted for
one party’s candidate at the previous election but were now inclined to choose the
opposite alternative were also defined as being under cross-pressure. It was found
as a main fact that an individual in this kind of situation had difficulty in reach-
ing a decision and delayed doing so until late in the campaign; many such voters
would belittle the importance of the controversy and the difference between the
stands of the two candidates. Some of these citizens would end by avoiding the
decision altogether. They abstained from voting.
Abstention is a fact that can be easily registered, and the proposition that persons
under cross-pressure vote less than others was soon accepted as ‘a major social
science theory’ (Pool et al., 1965, p. 74). It was not generally noticed that
Lazarsfeld and his coworkers mentioned an exception to their own rule. They did
so only on the final page of their section about cross-pressure. They did it in
passing, and what they emphasised was the inclination of individuals under cross-
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2002 VOL 50, 354–361
© Political Studies Association, 2002.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
To continue reading
Request your trial