681,
Discussion Questions, Challenges to Democratic Citizenship
IV. Democratic
Theory and Mass Political Sophistication: Challenges to Democratic Citizenship
Additional Readings:
Philip Converse.
"The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in David E. Apter
(ed.), Ideology and Discontent.
1.
A classic: the advantage
of being first.
2.
Why should anyone care
about the structure of mass belief systems or ideological thinking among the
public? What are the normative, analytical, and practical benefits? How does
Converse evaluate the competence of the ordinary citizen? Do you agree with his
position? Why or why not?
3.
How does Converse define
such things as ideology, belief systems, and ideological constraint? How are
these terms, especially ideological or attitude constraint, measured? What
three types of ideological constraint does Converse discuss? How would you
evaluate Converse’s measure of attitude constraint?
4.
What about completely
different methods of evaluating mass belief systems, such as depth interviews
of a much smaller number of respondents?
Zaller and Feldman,
"A Simple Theory of the Survey Response…”
1.
This is a classic and heavily cited article that
seeks to provide a new theory of the survey response and, in the process,
provides something of a compromise between two views on response stability by Converse (errors are in respondents) and Achen
(errors are in measures). In
developing their theory of the survey response, Zaller and Feldman distinguish
between explanations of response instability by Converse and Achen. What
are the differences between these two explanations and the problems with each?
In what ways does Zaller and Feldman’s model agree with and yet depart from
each of these two explanations?
2.
Achen: using Classic, true
attitude theory that assumes the only source of error in measures is random
measurement error, so low correlations between observed measures over time or
across measures of the same construct must attenuate true correlations. When “correct” for this attenuation,
stability coefficients are close to 1.0.
Over-correction. Non-random measurement error may inflate
correlations.
3.
What are the three axioms of Zaller and Feldman’s theory
of the survey response and where do they come from?
a)
Extrapolation of 3 simple axioms from an avalanche of research in political
science & psychology. High in
parsimony; lower in predictive accuracy when predicting individual
behavior.
4.
What are some of the
broader implications of the theory for the way public opinion should be
studied, for studying response stability, persuasion, and democracy? Are survey
responses “real,” or just epiphenomenal constructions? How malleable or fixed
is public opinion?
5.
Interestingly, some
analysts have taken Z&F’s theory of the survey response as a model of how
citizens form their opinions in the real world, not just in an interview. Is
this reasonable? How does the model help to put the political environment and
“politics” back into the study of public opinion?
6.
Questions to ponder now
and later:
a)
Pick an issue on which
public opinion has moved or hasn’t moved and do your best to apply this theory
to explain public opinion on this issue.
b)
How might you critique
this theory? Does it have enough axioms? Do the deductions follow directly from
the axioms? Can it be tested rigorously? Can it be falsified?
c)
How does the model help
explanation issue framing by elites? What implications does the model have for
the fluidity of building coalitions of support or opposition among the public?
What implications does the model have for helping to explain media influence on
public opinion?
d)
The model, which is admittedly
sparse, borrows selectively from theories of information processing, attitude
change, framing and so on. If one advantage of the model is parsimony,
what are some of the costs of relying on this more abbreviated model? More
generally, what are some of the major problems with the model, as you see them,
both theoretically and in its application?
Ansolabehere et al. 2008. APSR.
The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability,
Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” 215-232.
Here are a few questions for the Ansolabehere
article, which takes on many of the conventional wisdoms that grew out of
Converse’s 1964 chapter:
James Kuklinski, et al.
2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.”
1.
What is the difference
between being uninformed and being misinformed and what are the implications
for democracy?
2.
What are the implications
of the authors’ findings on misinformation and their attempts to correct it for
citizen sophistication?
3.
Are welfare attitudes
unique? Can the authors’ findings be applied to other policy attitudes? What
kinds of beliefs are most resistant to change?
Sullivan, et al. 1993. “Why Politicians are More
Tolerant..”
1.
What is political
tolerance, how is it different from social intolerance, and why is it important
to study?
2.
Do you think it is more,
less or just as important to study in the U.S. today as it was in the 1950s,
during the McCarthy era?
3.
What implicit normative
assumptions (e.g., about the priority attached to the value of political
tolerance versus other values) are being made by the authors and to what extent
are these standards applicable to other countries?
4.
To what extent is
political intolerance among the mass public a serious threat to
democracy?
5.
Are some forms of
political intolerance less dangerous than others or is there a single normative
standard of “pure” tolerance? Are people who express political intolerance
undemocratic? What about the “paradox of intolerance”?
6.
Why are politicians more
tolerant, why doesn’t Israel fit the pattern, and what does this say about
democratic theories and the role of elites?
7.
Are other explanations
possible?
8.
How do the authors use
survey experiments to investigate the pliability of tolerance attitudes?
9.
What more do you think should
be done here?
James L. Gibson. 2007.
“Intolerance and Political Repression in the US: A Half Century After
McCarthy.”
1.
Gibson’s study of
post-9/11 political tolerance in the U.S. raises a number of questions about
the antecedents and consequences of tolerance today.
2.
What is pluralistic intolerance?
3.
Evaluate Gibson’s
evidence for his conclusion that “the theory of pluralistic intolerance must be
reconceptualized to acknowledge that even unfocused intolerance can create a
culture of conformity that discourages those with unpopular views from
asserting themselves politically.”
4.
Are the different survey periods comparable? How might the question wording and the psychological
context influence responses to the same questions about perceptions of personal
freedoms over time?
Marc Hutchison and
Douglas Gibler. 2007. “Political Tolerance and Territorial Threat: A
Cross-National Study.
1.
What are the strengths
and weaknesses of the Hutchison and Gibler study?
2.
What does it contribute
to the study of political tolerance?