Peffley, PS 473, Public Opinion

Lecture Outline II:

EMPIRICAL BASES OF PUBLIC OPINION:

DEFINITIONS, CONCEPTS, THEORIES AND METHODS

Useful Definitions: Pollster is someone who goes from door to door asking people what they think they think of issues they haven't thought about. Good Citizen is someone who knows enough about his own weaknesses to unders-tand that even honest politicians have to be watched closely. Bigot is someone who hates different people than I do. Alienation is the belief that the paranoids in power are out to get you.

I. DEFINITIONS, PERSPECTIVES

A. Attitudes

1. Minimalist definition: An attitude is an enduring predisposition to respond positively or negatively to a particular stimulus (i.e., object) in a particular manner.

2. Properties: Attitudes are internal and inferred, somewhat stable over time and consistent across situations. They are the building blocks of political behavior: they mediate political perceptions and guide political behavior. Knowing public opinion allows us to explain and predict political behavior.

3. Problems of measurement and "nonattitudes"

4. Political attitudes are those directed toward political objects, such as political candidates, political issues, political parties, and political institutions. They mediate the perception of political objects and guide political behavior

B. Attitudes versus related concepts: Attitudes, Beliefs, Values, and Behavior are separate entities (Fishbein and Ajzen): the term “attitude” should be reserved solely for the affective dimension, indicating evaluation or favorability toward the attitude object. The cognitive dimension of attitudes should be considered "beliefs." The behavioral dimension should be considered "behavioral intentions." There is no necessary congruence between beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions.

Other Definitions

1. Beliefs: beliefs assert the truth or falsity of propositions about the object. They state a relationship between the object and some characteristic. “Bill Clinton/George Bush is a lying liar.”

2. Values: Defined as “each individual’s abstract, general conceptions about the desirable and undesirable end states of human life.” Important life-goals or standards for a person. Ends rather than means. Values are central elements in a person's system of attitudes and beliefs. Examples include:
Individualism (“Everyone ought to get ahead on their own without relying on government for help”)
Equality (“One of the biggest problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance.”)
Humanitarianism (“One should always find ways to help others who are less fortunate than oneself”)
Patriotism: (“I am extremely proud to be an American”)

3. Public opinion: “Preferences of the adult population on matters of relevance to government” (Erikson and Tedin, p. 6).

C. The Structure of Beliefs, Political Attitudes, and Ideologies

1. A belief or attitude system is a set of interconnected beliefs or attitudes, such that we can predict one belief from knowing another and when one belief changes, other related beliefs change as a result.

2. Example: the vertical structure of economic or abortion policy attitudes: general orientations (e.g., values, general beliefs, group identifications)àspecific policy preferences.

II. Measuring Public Opinion (also see Erikson and Tedin, Ch. 2):

C. Informal and formal ways of measuring public opinion. Quantitative and qualitative methods.

D. The strengths and weaknesses of survey research, compared to other methods, including experiments, Q-methodology, depth interviews, and focus groups.

E. Class Discussion: Theories of the survey response and implications for public opinion formation (based on John Zaller and Stanley Feldman’s work, partially covered in Erikson and Tedin, Ch 3).

III. When do attitudes predict behavior?

Question: To what degree do our inner selves (attitudes) correspond to our outer selves (behavior)?

A. Diagram of expressed attitudes, true attitudes, behavior and other influences.

Other Influences Expressed Attitude

Internal Attitude

Other Influences Behavior

B. Conditions under which expect a higher degree of correspondence between attitudes and behavior:

1. When "other influences" on expressed attitudes and our behavior are minimized.

2. When the observed behavior is as general as the expressed attitude.

3. When attitudes are "strong" or the situation is "weak."

IV. Empirical Evidence to Evaluate Democratic Theories

A. Are Individuals and the Public Rational? (Erikson and Tedin, Chs 3 & 6; Page and Shapiro, The Rational Public)

1. Democratic Elitists’ arguments and evidence: public lacks information, lacks opinions, lacks commitment, irrational, politically intolerant, and education and participation haven’t helped

2. Representative democratic theorists

a) Rational ignorance

b) Heuristic reasoning

c) Collective rationality

3. Consequences of political ignorance

B. Is the Public Politically Tolerant? (i.e., willing to allow the expression of ideas and interests it opposes)

1. Political Tolerance Defined, Distinguished from Social Tolerance

2. Relationship between political tolerance and political repression

3. Political Tolerance in Democratic Theories: What "solutions" to political repression and political intolerance do these theories prescribe? What predictions do these theories make about the levels and sources of political tolerance among masses and elites that we can "test" with the available survey data?

a) Representative Theory (e.g., J. S. Mill): tolerance important to: protect individual autonomy, get at the "truth," enhance true choice, realize Natural Rights. Faith in the masses.

b) Democratic Elitism: can't depend on irrational and intolerant masses for tolerance; must place faith in political elites instead.

c) Madisonian Democracy: distrust masses and elites; places faith in democratic institutions and pluralism (pluralistic intolerance) to condition tolerance and to prohibit intolerance among masses and elites.

4. Evidence

a) McCarthy "Red Scare" in the United States: Implications for all three theories. (Stouffer, Gibson)

b) Contemporary Survey Studies

(1) Least-liked measure of political tolerance as a two-step process of assessing political tolerance: a) who is your least-liked group? b) should a member of the group be allowed to ….?

(2) Potential sources of political intolerance:

(a) Support for general norms of tolerance (i.e., civil liberties: "I believe in free speech/letting anyone run for office/giving a speech, no matter what their views are"). Generally high acceptance at the abstract level, but fairly low tolerance when these principles are applied to least-liked groups.

(b) personality (e.g., closed-mindedness: "there are two types of people, those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth")

(c) social conservatism or conformity (e.g., “People need to learn to fit in and get along with others.” “Obeying rules and fitting in are signs of a strong and healthy society.”)

(d) perceived threat of target group (e.g., ratings of group as "dangerous," "violent," or "untrustworthy"—i.e., belligerent or treacherous)

(e) political involvement?

(f) social background characteristics (e.g., education, urbanization, etc.). Generally, only an indirect effect on degree of tolerance, operating through other factors, like personality or social conservatism.

(3) Political tolerance in comparative perspective. Are political elites more tolerant than the mass public, and if so, why? (Sullivan, et al, 1993)

(4) Should support for the Patriot Act, which restricts freedoms, be considered political intolerance?

c) Summary Questions: how do these findings affect support for the democratic theories? In other words: Which democratic theory fits the "facts" (i.e., survey and historical evidence) the best? Which theory should be used to prescribe solutions for coping with intolerance and preventing political repression?