Transcript Public Opinion - The Weaker Party

Public Opinion and Polling
GOVT 2305
In the previous sections we looked at
the development of the freedom of
speech and manner in which that
freedom is interpreted by the courts.
Special attention was paid to the
reasons why the courts may allow for
limitations of the freedom of speech
and why.
It was pointed out that the freedom of
speech allowed people to hold opinions
independent of those of the governing
regime, and articulate them.
This allows for the formation of public
opinion, which underlies – in some way –
what democratic governments do.
Which leads to the development of
public opinion and its role as an
external force upon government
and public policy.
Which is as it should be in a
democracy – or at least that’s the
theory.
In this section we look more deeply
into the concept of public opinion
and hit a few topics associated
with it.
First, we will begin by looking at
the role public opinion is argued to
play in a democracy.
And augment this with a look at
how the constitution structures
that relationship. Some of this
ground has been covered in
previous sections.
Second we will look at the origins
of public opinion, which will
include a look at the agents of
socialization. These are the groups
and institutions – including
families, peers, schools and the
media – which are the principle
mechanisms that determine what
people think and believe.
Third, we will cover how public
opinion is measured.
This will take us to public opinion
polling, which attempt to use
scientifically valid means to
determine what a large group of
individuals think about a specific
thing.
And fourth, we will analyze the
content of public opinion.
What do Americans tend to think
about certain things? Where is
there agreement and
disagreement?
Here are Blog Tags taking you to the various
posts I’ve complied over the years related to
public opinion:
Frank Luntz
Framing
Ideology
Irrational Public
Is the American Public Rational?
Political Ignorance
Political Knowledge
Polls
Public Opinion
Let’s begin by defining public
opinion.
Here are two definitions
of public opinion:
1: the predominant attitude of a community :
the collective will of the people <a fluctuation in
public opinion may redirect national policy>
2: a summation of public expression regarding a
specific issue or event <public opinion on
balancing the budget falls into two main
categories.
And another:
Public Opinion: the aggregate
opinions or values held by a group
of people, usually as determined
by a public opinion poll.
And still another: “those opinions
held by private persons which
governments find it prudent to
heed.“ – V.O. Key.
We can think of public opinion in a
couple ways.
1 - The latent opinion that seems to exist in
a group of people.
2 – The attitudes that can be scientifically
measured from a representative sample
drawn from a population of interest.
The former refers to a feeling you
might get from being in a group of
people while the latter refers to a
more precise objective measure.
Here are some other related terms.
A person’s opinions are argued to
be composed of some combination
of the following:
values
attitudes
beliefs
Value: An assumption which is the
basis for ethical action.
Attitude: an expression of favor is
disfavor towards a person, place,
thing, or event.
Belief: A psychological state in
which a person holds a conjecture
of premise to be true.
Public opinion is argued to be a
measure of what people believe at
a moment in time when asked to
apply the previous concepts to
current events.
First topic
What role should public opinion
play in a democracy?
That’s a subject we have investigated previously
in separate sections of the class. In a sense the
answer depends on what types of democracy
one refers to. In a direct democracy public
opinion is tied directly to public policy. In a
representative democracy – a republic – the
impact of public opinion is modified.
If you recall from early sections, the
constitutional system is designed to limit
the direct influence the general population
can have on government.
The framers of the Constitution had low
opinions of the ability of the general
population to govern themselves.
Remember that the founders had a
mixed view of the opinion of the
general population. While they
accepted that the nations must
rest on the people’s authority, they
were suspicious of the quality of
public opinion. This is a theme we
started this class with.
Recall this quote from Alexander
Hamilton presented in the first set
of power points in this class:
“For my part, I am not much attached to the majesty of the
multitude, and therefore waive all pretensions (founded on such
conduct), to their countenance. I consider them in general as
very ill qualified to judge for themselves what government will
best suit their peculiar situations; nor is this to be wondered at.
The science of government is not easily understood. Cato will
admit, I presume, that men of good education and deep
reflection, only, are judges of the form of a government; whether
it is constituted on such principles as will restrain arbitrary
power, on the one hand, and equal to the exclusion of corruption
and the destruction of licentiousness on the other”
- (Caesar #2) Alexander Hamilton
John Adams was dismissive of public
opinion also:
“The proposition that the people are
the best keepers of their own liberties
is not true. They are the worst
conceivable, they are no keepers at all;
they can neither judge, act, think, or
will, as a political body.”
And recall Madison’s take on public
opinion in Federalist #10:
“The instability, injustice, and confusion
introduced into the public councils, have,
in truth, been the mortal diseases under
which popular governments have
everywhere perished”
When we discussed the overall design of
the Constitution, we pointed out that it’s
intended to both connect the general
population to the government, but limits
its ability to immediately impact the
operations of the government.
It does this partly by designing each
governing institution so that it has a
unique connection to the electorate.
This reflects a suspicion the
founders had about public opinion
in a democracy.
It allows for the tyranny of the
majority.
When we discussed the Bill of
Rights we mentioned that one of
the purposes of the document was
to place limits on what laws
Congress could pass, which is also
a way of limiting what influence
public opinion can have on public
policy.
The Bill of Rights is ultimately
enforced by the Supreme Court’s
ability to declare laws that violate
it null and void – judicial review.
Remember that the Supreme Court
is not accountable to the
electorate. It can make decisions
that run counter to public opinion.
This includes the
ability of groups to
protest at military
funerals.
“We have to discharge
our responsibility to
enforce the rights in
favor of minorities,
whatever the majority
reaction may be.”
– Supreme Court
Justice William
Brennan.
We also discussed John Stuart
Mill’s take on tyranny of the
majority:
“ . . . there needs protection also against the tyranny of
the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency
of society to impose, by other means than civil
penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of
conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the
development and, if possible, prevent the formation of
any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and
compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the
model of its own.”
- John Stuart Mill.
A full discussion of public affairs
cannot happen if the majority is
able to limit what the minority can
say.
The point is that public opinion can
be dangerous in a democracy,
nevertheless, it is considered to be
the driving force behind the
establishment of public policy.
Or if it does not drive the
formation of public policy, it is
necessary in order to legitimize it.
This important to bear in mind.
If someone complains that the government
is not doing something the general
population wants it to do, one response is
that government is not designed to
respond to quick shifts in public opinion. It
is designed however for slow steady shifts
in opinion to impact policy.
This is one of the consequences of
the separated powers.
Example:
Despite substantive majorities for laws limiting
access to certain guns following the December
2012 Sandy Hook school shootings, the bills
containing these limits were defeated. Part of
the reason was that support spiked following
the shootings, but decreased over time. The
bicameral legislative system slows the bill
making process down and makes it less likely to
respond to sudden shifts in opinion.
Key point:
Attitudes about gun control tend to
fluctuate, often in response to events like
school shootings. Some institutions are
designed to be responsive to those shifts,
but some are designed to be resistant to
them. If the shift in opinion is temporary,
then it is unlikely to impact policy. A bill on
the issue is not likely to be passed into law.
This doesn’t work all the time.
Certain events – like 9/11 – are
responded to quickly by Congress,
but these are the exception not the
rule. Click here for Thomas’ links to
legislation related to the 9/11
attacks.
Some attitudes witness slow, gradual, steady change in
one direction. These are more likely to lead to the
passage of legislation responding to these shifts in
attitudes. The reason is that over time those shifts
affect the composition of each of the separated
powers, and they become more unified – in agreement
– on those issues.
The classic example of this is attitudes about race.
Attitudes of white Americans towards African
Americans has shifted dramatically over the past 70
years. This helps explain why segregation laws have not
only been overturned, but are unlikely to return.
This suggests that public opinion
does have an impact on public
policy – so democracy works – but
it is a slow process that is meant to
ensure that radical, temporary
shifts in public opinion do not
impact public policy. Only steady
substantive changes do.
What about the impact of money
in politics?
A current – serious – concern is whether
the recent increase in the amount of
money in politics minimizes the democratic
nature of governance.
Elected representatives who rely on
campaign funds from wealthy individuals
may focus on the interests of their donors,
not their constituents.
We tend to believe that democracy
is supposed to reflect the will of
the people.
We have Abraham Lincoln to credit
for this. Here’s a key quote form
the Gettysburg Address:
Government of the
people, by the
people, for the
people, shall not
perish from the
Earth.
This suggests that government should
reflect the will of the people, but Lincoln
was in many ways reorienting the nature of
governance, and making it more
democratic.
The original governing system – at least
nationally – restricted participation to the
wealthy. Again, this is subject matter we’ve
covered before.
There’s nothing new to the idea that the
wealthy have greater access to people in
power – and can in fact place people in
positions of power due to their ability to
influence the political process.
The opinions of the wealthy have tended
to weight more than the opinions of the
average person.
But as out expectations of
democracy have changed, and we
expect overall public opinion to
have a greater impact.
This continues to be a subject of
political science.
Click here for an interview with
authors of a recent paper that
claim that members of Congress
are more likely to visit with donors
than constituents.
How about the poor? If their
opinion shifts on issues, does it
impact policy? Not necessarily.
We discuss this further elsewhere.
Second Topic
The Origins of Public Opinion
Agents of Socialization
Like the previous slide suggests, this
section looks at the source of public
opinion.
Much of this will focus on the role that the
“agents of socialization” have on the
opinions we have. The primary “agents”
are argued to be the family, schools, peer
groups and the media – though others
exist as well.
In Federalist #10 Madison offered
his take on the source of public
opinion in order to determine why
different opinions formed.
If you recall, he pointed to two
things: poor reasoning and self
interest.
Ignorance
As long as the reason of man continues fallible,
and he is at liberty to exercise it, different
opinions will be formed. As long as the
connection subsists between his reason and his
self-love, his opinions and his passions will have
a reciprocal influence on each other; and the
former will be objects to which the latter will
attach themselves.
Self Interest
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion,
concerning government, and many other points, as well
of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different
leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and
power; or to persons of other descriptions whose
fortunes have been interesting to the human passions,
have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed
them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much
more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to
co-operate for their common good.
So this is a topic that has interested
people for some time.
And it continue to the subject of
research.
This assumes of course that opinions are
not innate, that they are shaped by the
experiences we are exposed to over the
course of our lives.
Some current researchers are beginning to
challenge this, and argue that our opinions
are based on our genetic structure. Our
ideological positions may be rooted in our
DNA.
Click here for an article in Nature
on that subject:
Biology and ideology:
The anatomy of politics
“An increasing number of studies suggest that biology
can exert a significant influence on political beliefs and
behaviours. Biological factors including genes, hormone
levels and neurotransmitter systems may partly shape
people's attitudes on political issues such as welfare,
immigration, same-sex marriage and war. And shrewd
politicians might be able to take advantage of those
biological levers through clever advertisements aimed
at voters' primal emotions.
Many of the studies linking biology to politics remain
controversial and un replicated. But the overall body of
evidence is growing and might alter how people think
about their own and others' political attitudes.”
No need to did too deeply into this
area, other than to acknowledge
that it’s an increasingly important
area of study.
We’ll stick primarily to the agents
of socialization.
The Family
Given the amount of exposure
people have to their families, plus
the fact that this exposure happens
at a young age, its little surprise
that families are assumed to have –
perhaps – the biggest impact on a
child’s political socialization.
Families are assumed to influence
three things in children.
First, a basic set of values which can include a
simple understanding of what’s right and wrong.
Second, a sense of what issues are most
important, for example gun rights or the right to
join a labor union. And third, an attachment to a
political party or candidate.
All this assumes that the family is
politically active.
A family that is involved in politics
gives their kids the idea that politics is
not only important to be involved in,
but that they can use the political
process for their own benefit. They can
also learn the ways to do so.
But kids can also learn the
opposite. Politics is something to
be avoided. Parents who do not
participate tend to have kids who
do not participate.
This leads to the obvious problem.
One reason why parents might not
have that big an influence however
is that as kids grow, they can rebel
and adopt opinions that run
counter to their parents.
One reason this can happen is due
to the influence of another agent
of socialization.
Peer Groups
A peer group can be defined as any group
of individuals that someone chooses to
engage with or identify with.
These groups can be any number of things
and include a variety of different people.
This can include friends, co-workers, fellow
church members, neighbors, among many
others.
Peer groups have been increasingly
argued to be dominant
determinants of attitudes among
the young, and even beyond.
This is an idea made in an
influential book written in 1998:
The Nurture Assumption.
In the book the author – after witnessing
the behavior of her own children challenged the idea that parents have a
dominant influence on children. Peer
group influence may be more important.
Most of what she witnessed with her own
children were their attempts to assimilate
with friends of their own age.
Peer group effects are measured in a variety of
ways. One way it is done is to look at
neighborhood effects. Voting behavior and
public opinion can sometimes be shaped by
general trends in one’s neighborhood.
There is evidence that a moving to a
neighborhood can have an impact on one’s
political opinions. People might rethink long
held beliefs is suddenly put in an environment
where they are surrounded by people with
other beliefs.
Peer group influence work through membership
in different social organizations, notably
churches. Here attitudes beliefs and values are
developed and reinforced.
Churches can also provide other connections
that can enable political participation. People
that are involved in churches also tend to be
involved in other organizations as well. Church
members also tend to be highly active politically.
One reason why peer group
influence may be less that family
influence is that connections with
peer groups can be short-lived.
This is not true for one specific
type of peer group however.
Political Generations
A “political generation” is a group of individuals born
around the same time that were exposed to similar
events and may then have opinions that are shaped
more by these common events – that are reinforced by
one’s peers – than the messages one gets from one’s
parents.
The United States has had more than a dozen unique
generations since its founding – including the founding
generation. Each has its own set of experiences which
conditioned their outlook. These attitudes tend to die
off with them.
Examples of political generations
currently active in politics:
Silent Generation (born 1929-45)
Baby Boomers (born 1946-64)
Generation X (born 1965-80)
The Millenials (born 1981-93)
People born in each of those times
witnessed and lived through
different events – the Great
Depression, Pearl Harbor, the
Kennedy Assassination, the fall of
Communism, 9/11, the crash of
2008 – and each event has its own
unique impact on their attitudes
and political identity.
The dispositions of each vary.
Click here for a Pew Research
Center look at political generations
– as well as a related NPR story
here. Notice how attitudes about
government vary depending upon
age.
The opinions about certain policies and
about the role of government can vary
depending upon which generation a group
belongs to.
Often changes in public opinion is not due
to people changing their minds, but
because a generation with one point of
view grows old and dies and is replaced
with a generation that holds a different
point of view.
Here’s a graph showing age
differences in attitudes about
government.
Changes in attitudes about racial
relationships and the role of
women have been driven by
changes in political generations
more than anything else.
Here’s a graph from the Gallup Poll
that shows changes in attitudes
about inter racial marriage.
By the way, note the change in
wording mentioned in the previous
graph – those matter.
More on that soon.
A current case in point is attitudes
about same-sex relationships.
Opposition to gay marriage comes
mostly from older generations, and
is likely to die with them.
Understanding this dynamic gives
us insight into what types of
changes in policy are likely to be
supported in the future.
Where changes are likely to
happen and where it is not.
Notice that the situation with
attitudes about whether abortion
should be legal under any
circumstances is more complex.
Age does not seem to explain
much.
For grins, here’s a story about how
teenagers are impacted by selfies
posted by other teenagers on
social media.
A picture of other teenagers
smoking and drinking can influence
others to do the same.
Millennials tend to avoid institutions.
Race
As with party identification
described previously, race has
evolved as a leading factor causing
individuals to adopt and reinforce
opinions about policy issues. It also
impacts how people interpret
current events.
Race has been a traditional
dividing line in American politics,
so this should be no surprise.
There are clear differences
between whites and blacks in
attitudes about a number of public
issues.
Here are two:
The
Response to
Hurricane
Katrina
The Travon Martin Shooting
Racial differences also exist
regarding the Affordable Care Act.
If this isn’t enough, click here for a
snapshot view of attitudes of the
African American community, and
here for a study about lingering
prejudice against the African
Americans.
Its worth noting that only recently have
surveys began including questions about
the Hispanic and Asian population.
The realities of public opinion surveys
makes it difficult for minority populations
to be surveyed accurately – we will touch
on this point below.
Until recently, the Latino
population was simply added to
the “white” category. Only recently
has that not been the case,
meaning there’s not much history
in measuring Latino opinion.
Click here for a study analyzing
differences within the community.
Some demographic data.
Which is preferable “Hispanic” or
“Latino?”
Gender
As with race, gender differences –
and unequal treatment – have a
long history n American politics.
Women have emerged as a unique
voice in American politics.
There is a steady difference in
opinions on major social issues
between men an women.
This is referred to as the
Gender Gap.
Generally the term refers to the
difference in voting patterns
between men and women.
Women tend to vote 10
percentage points more for
Democrats than Republican.
Here’s data from Nate Silver
They also tend to be more liberal –
by 10 to 25 percentage points – in
a variety of issues, including:
the role of government
affirmative action
pay equity
heath care
military intervention
Click here for links to research on
the gender gap.
From the Hill: Gallup: 2012 election
had the largest gender gap in
recorded history
Political Parties
Another institution that can be
considered a peer group is a
political party. When one identifies
with a party, one also identifies
with a group that supports and
confirms the viewpoints they hold.
We will considered this already in a
previous section.
But studies have pointed out
something odd.
Identification with a political party can
condition the opinions that people
hold to the point that experimenters
have led party identifiers to adopt
positions contrary to a party’s normal
platform by simply telling subjects that
the opposite is true.
Democrats have been persuaded
to support cuts to welfare
programs while Republican have
been persuaded to support
expansions of it, if the subject is
told that these are the new
positions taken by the party.
Peer group influence seems to be
able to lead people to do some
problematic things.
Schools
If you remember from the early
sections in this class, schools were
argued to play a central role in
preparing the general population
to be ready for the responsibilities
of self-government.
This was held true on both the
national and state level.
Conversely, when discussing the expansion
of participation and equal protection it was
pointed out that limiting access to
education was considered necessary to
keeping certain populations in a secondary
status.
The seminal civil rights case Brown v. Board
of Education of Topeka, Kansas was based
on access to a decent elementary school.
This explains why there was an effort to
educate the public.
Educational institutions are often used to
promote certain values, which leads to
common acceptance of certain beliefs and
a greater tendency to support the republic.
You have permission to be cynical.
Think about it:
Why do you have
to take this
class?
Education or
Indoctrination?
For this reason, and since students
spend so much time in school, it is
held that schools are also principal
agents of socialization.
It does so not only because of the
information they provide, but also due
to the habits they instill. The later part
is called the hidden curriculum.
From Pearson: Alongside the formal
curriculum within educational
establishments exists a hidden curriculum.
This refers to values, attitudes and
principles which are implicitly conveyed to
students. The hidden curriculum is argued
to encourage social control first within the
school itself and, subsequently, within
society as a whole.
Some of this can involve performing
quasi-governing functions that
students will later engage in when
they become adults.
Or just doing what is necessary to
engage in civil society – like not biting
your classmates and learning how to
stand in line.
The impact of schools varies depending on the
level.
Kids learn basic information about the nation –
including symbols, events and people – in
elementary school. This includes becoming
familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance and the
Star Spangled Banner. The precise content might
vary depending on the school. Some figures like
Robert E. Lee, Cesar Chavez, and Malcolm X
might be presented some places and not others.
In secondary school the curriculum can
become more detailed and critical thinking
associated with the nature of governance
is more common.
Also students begin to play act aspects of
the democratic process. Student council
elections allow students opportunities to
become accustomed to living in a
democratic system.
And in each of these levels
students read textbooks and are
exposed to curricula that are
authorized by the state and local
governments. So what they are
taught is based on what the
general society wants them to
learn.
The older the child gets, the more
the formal curriculum becomes an
issue and the more the school can
be a battle ground over what
aspects of American history and
governance ought to be covered
and how.
Texas is often a battleground over these
conflicts. In recent decades conservative groups
have challenged what they think has been a
liberal approach to teaching government and
history in the state. Every ten years the Texas
Board of Education revisits the K-12 curriculum
which provides opportunities to revisit how
different subjects are taught.
Click here for a discussion of the most recent
battle in 2010.
“After three days of turbulent meetings, the
Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a
social studies curriculum that will put a
conservative stamp on history and economics
textbooks, stressing the superiority of American
capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’
commitment to a purely secular government
and presenting Republican political philosophies
in a more positive light.
The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all
the Republicans on the board voting for it.”
What unique influence does
college have?
In each of the levels in K-12,
students stay connected with their
families so anything they are
exposed to at school is balanced
out by the home.
Things change when students leave
to go to college.
As a result, its held that college has the
greatest impact on political
socialization because students are not
only exposed to more alternate ideas,
they are less likely to have those ideas
balanced by their families.
The classic study of this effect was the
Bennington College Study.
Bennington College provided an
opportunity to test the impact of exposure
to viewpoints contrary to one’s parents. It
was an expensive college where
conservative parents could send their
daughters. But the faculty was very liberal.
This allowed researchers the opportunity
to test whether the students positions on
issues changed and whether those changes
were stable.
In both cases they found that they
did.
But the explanation also dipped
into the influence of peer groups.
“Did these changes in political attitudes become a part
of an enduring ideological identity? In general, the
answer is yes. Two follow-up studies of the Bennington
women 25 and 50 years later found they had remained
liberal. For example, in the 1984 presidential election,
73 percent of Bennington alumnae preferred the
Democratic candidate Walter Mondale over the
Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, compared with
fewer than 26 percent of women of the same age and
educational level. Moreover, about 60 percent of
Bennington alumnae were politically active, most (66
percent) within the Democratic party.”
“The political attitudes of Bennington women
remained stable, in part, because they selected
new reference groups after college--friends and
husbands--who supported the attitudes they
developed in college. Those who married more
conservative men were more likely to be
politically conservative in 1960. As Newcomb
noted, we often select our reference groups
because they share our attitudes, and then our
reference groups, in turn, help to develop and to
sustain our attitudes.”
College might have a unique
impact on personal opinions
because they introduce people to
new peer groups – or reference
groups as the study terms them.
The Media
The impact of the media is highly
controversial, and high unclear.
It is commonly assumed that the media is
seldom objective – that it tends to
promote ideologically tinged viewpoints.
This is called media bias. Some even argue
that it should and there is no sense in
pretending that it should be objective.
But establishing that an ideologically biased
media actually has an impact on public opinion
is difficult to prove. This is similar to the
problem of proving that peer groups have an
impact.
Do people select media outlets – and peer
groups – because they have a tendency to adopt
the opinions and ideological viewpoints of
common to them?
We will explore the media in a later section, but for
now its important to understand the consequence of
the vast range of sources – from print to cable to online
– of news and opinion available.
Researchers that study how people use the media have
discovered that people have a strong tendency to listen
to news sources that confirm the values and opinions
they already hold. We don’t like to be confronted with
information that challenges out pre-held world view.
This is called confirmation bias.
This supports the argument that
the American public does not take
rational positions on issues.
We do not objectively study events
and policies. We do not reach
opinions by analyzing evidence, we
work backward from out opinions
and find evidence to support them.
Some suggest that this is one of
the sources of ideological
polarization in society.
A media environment with a wide
range of choices of news that each
provide a narrow biased viewpoint
reinforces this polarization.
But is this something driven by the
media? Or are media outlets –
which are businesses driven by the
need to collect revenue – supplying
a demand?
Which is the cart and which is the
horse?
If the impact of media bias has
been difficult to determine, the
media has been successful in
influencing public opinion in one
key area:
Agenda Setting.
If you remember from a previous section
on stages in the public policy process, you
remember that it all starts with agenda
setting.
People have to be made aware of an issue
before it can be considered by a governing
entity and turned – potentially – into
public policy.
This is often argued to be the
biggest impact the media can have
on politics and government.
A 1968 study showed a correlation
between what people thought
were the major issues of the day
and what the television networks
covered.
LBJ famously decided to start
pushing civil rights legislation when
he noticed the three major
networks were leading their news
programs with video of civil rights
marchers being beaten by police.
Here’s a telling quote:
The media does not tell you what
to think, but it can tell you what to
think about.
But the nature of the coverage can
be influenced.
Images and word choices can impact how people
process and evaluate information. For example, when
covering a story involving poverty, unemployment
benefits, and the minimum wage does the story focus
on social factors that make it difficult for some people
to do well in the current economy or do they focus on
personal behaviors instead?
Most public and private
organization understand the
impact of the media and have
strategies designed to impact how
people process information.
This is commonly referred to as
spin control.
More precisely this is referred to a
framing and priming.
We’ll cover these more when we
discuss the media in a separate
section.
A final point on agents of
socialization:
Shaping Public Opinion
These effects come from entities that are
not necessarily political, but can have
indirect effects on political attitudes.
Some entities deliberately look to impact
political attitudes in order to attempt to
shape political opinions, so lets turn to
them. The fact that governments attempt
to do so is not new.
James Madison on government’s
attempts to influence public
opinion:
“Public opinion sets bounds to every
government, and is the real sovereign in every
free one. As there are cases where the public
opinion must be obeyed by the government; so
there are cases, where not being fixed, it may be
influenced by the government.”
This is an important point. In a
democracy government is
supposed to follow public opinion,
but it also tries to influence the
nature of public opinion.
Increasingly sophisticated media
technology has made this an
ongoing effort.
Example: The Permanent
Campaign: “governing with public
approval requires a continuing
political campaign”
Elected officials never stop
campaigning. Once they win office,
the campaign shifts to ensuring
support for their initiatives.
The rise of these efforts increased
with the rise of the public relations
industry.
Read up here on Edward Bernays:
“the father of public relations”
In a democracy, there must be a
tight relationship between public
opinion and public policy.
But the relationship is complex.
While public opinion influences
government, governments try to
influence public opinion.
While the people are to be
sovereign in the American system,
governments, and political
organizations, actively engage in
efforts to influence public opinion.
The White House and Congress
have communications and press
offices that attempt to mold
opinions about their proposals.
A final point for this section
The formation of public opinion
How do people process
information and form it into
opinions?
Years of accumulated public
opinion research has allowed
research into this question – as has
experimental studies.
Much of this rests where political
science and psychology overlaps.
A common question asked is
whether we use incoming
information to develop opinions or
to we evaluate incoming
information based on whether it
confirms pre-existing beliefs?
Research suggests that the later is
more important than the former.
People tend to not want to spend
too much time making up their
minds about things.
They (we) like to use short-cuts to
figure out what to make of events
and people. The fancy terms for
this process is heuristics. From the
ever trusty Wikipedia:
These and other factors also serve
as heuristic devices that make it
easier for people to make decisions
about political matters.
A variety of factors serve this
function.
Heuristic refers to experience-based techniques
for problem solving, learning, and discovery that
give a solution which is not guaranteed to be
optimal. Where the exhaustive search is
impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed
up the process of finding a satisfactory solution
via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load
of making a decision. Examples of this method
include using a rule of thumb, an educated
guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping,
or common sense.
A problematic type of heuristic is
stereotyping. This can be defined as:
“ . . . standardized and simplified
conceptions of groups, based on some
prior assumptions. Generally speaking,
these ‘stereotypes’ are not based on
objective truth, but rather subjective and
often unverifiable content-matter.”
An even fancier way to describe
this process involves schema
theory.
Over the course of our lives we’ve
developed ideas about how the
world works. We seldom feel the
need to rethink the conclusions we
have reached.
We use these ideas to make quick
decisions about matters that
present themselves to us.
Researchers call these schemas.
“Schemata are an effective tool for
understanding the world. Through the use of
schemata, most everyday situations do not
require effortful processing— automatic
processing is all that is required. People can
quickly organize new perceptions into schemata
and act effectively without effort. For example,
most people have a stairway schema and can
apply it to climb staircases they've never seen
before.”
They make living in a world that
forces us to make decisions all the
time, to make them efficiently.
Think about these as filters that
help us evaluate and process
information.
Ideology acts as such a filter.
Remember that ideology has
previously been defined as a set of
issue positions based on an
underlying value.
Ideological identification also helps
people determine what to believe
and what not to believe.
Conservatives tend to believe only
conservatives and liberal only liberals.
The same information can be discounted if
comes from someone the recipient does
not like. The people who convey these
messages are sometimes called opinion
leaders. They send cues to people who
identify with them.
Third Topic
How do we know what the content
of public opinion?
By using polls.
How is this done and what are the
problems associated with it?
We can think of public opinion in at
least two ways. First, as a general
“sense” that exists among a group
of people. Second, as numbers that
attempt to encapsulate that sense
in some specific way.
A public opinion poll attempts to
makes that conversion. A
representative sample is drawn
from a group of interest and is
asked questions. Usually,
predetermined choices are
presented to the participants in a
poll.
Here’s a definition:
A public opinion poll is a systematic
way to estimate the attitudes and
opinions of a large group of people
by drawing a representative
sample of that group and asking
them questions.
The answers to these questions
can tell us the population’s
attitudes about candidates for
office, public policy positions,
ideological beliefs, purchasing
decisions or anything else of
interest.
Polling has become ubiquitous over the
past several decades. Almost all aspects of
politics use polling to determine not only
what public thinks about certain issues, but
how their opinion might be manipulated.
Governing entities, political parties, and
interest groups actively use polling to
determine how best to frame their
messages.
Here’s a quick look at how polls work.
Remember that a poll attempts to do
something that seems impossible. Use a
small handful of people to determine the
opinions of a much larger group. In the
case of the US, a properly selected group
of 1000 people can be used to estimate the
opinions of the entire nation of 300 million
within a small margin of error.
This can be done by using random
sampling.
This is a process used to draw a sample
from the population the researcher wishes
to study. The theory is that anyone in that
population has the same chance to be
drawn into the sample. The only question
is how is this best done. The process has
changed over time as the means people
use to communicate change.
The person who
has been credited
with developing
this process – at
least the theory
underlying it – is
George Gallup.
The Gallup Poll
The oldest of the polling
organizations. Founded by George
Gallup who helped develop the
random sampling process.
Other polling organizations exist as well:
Major polling organizations include:
ABC News
American National Election Studies
Associated Press
CBS News
CNN
Gallup
General Social Survey at NORC
Wall Street Journal/NBC News
Washington Post
Fox
Marist
Pew Research Center
Siena College
Quinnipiac University
A good resource for information
from various polls:
Pollster
Gallup became noteworthy due to
a stunt he pulled to demonstrate
the accuracy of his methods during
the 1936 presidential election.
It involved a challenge to the
Literary Digest Poll which had done
a good job predicting the results of
the previous presidential elections.
Simply put, the Literary Digest used a methodology that
over sampled voters who were likely to vote for Alf
Landon. They drew names from automobile registration
lists and telephone directories. These were things
wealthy individuals were more likely to possess during
the Great Depression. The Literary Digest predicted
Landon would defeat Franklin Roosevelt, which turned
out not to be true. This was because their sample over
represented Republican voters.
Gallup predicted both that Roosevelt would win and
that the Literary Digest would predict he would lose.
Click here for how Gallup conducts polls.
Other polls make adjustments to the
process, but most methods follow the
basic outline of Gallup’s. Small changes
might be made to ensure that a sample
does in fact represent the population a
pollster wishes to measure.
Generally polls are good at
determining public opinion within a
margin of error.
Sometimes polls can be criticized for
not predicting results closer.
Whenever elections are within the
margin of error – plus or minus 3% they cannot predict accurately who
the winner will be.
Forecasting elections is a different
game than measuring public
opinion.
Measuring public opinion is a
lucrative business, so it’s important
that pollsters get results right.
Pollsters tend to police themselves
well and are on the look-out for
factors that can bias results.
Click here for the Gallup Poll’s
accuracy record in presidential
elections.
538 details how the various polls
did in predicting the results of the
2012 presidential election. Gallup
did the worst.
The variance in performance is due to the
different techniques used to draw samples.
Until the rise of cell phones and the
internet, pollsters could confidently use
landlines to draw samples. This is not
longer the case, and it poses problems for
the reliability of polls.
Click here for a Pew Research Center report
on the topic.
One of the problems is that cell phone
users are different than landline users –
they tend to be younger and more
transient, and more likely to be members
of a minority group. Over representation of
land line users leads to a biased sample.
This was the same problem in the Literary
Digest Poll. People likely to vote Republican
were over represented in the poll. This lead
to the wrong result.
There are a variety of ways that
bias can enter into poll results.
Let’s have a quick look at them.
Here are examples:
Incorrectly Drawn Samples
Timing
Question Ordering / Framing Effects
Question Wording
Incorrectly Drawn Samples
We’ve discussed this problem already, so no need to
dwell too heavily into it. But it’s important to keep this
issue in mind when hearing about poll result.
Has the pollster in fact drawn a sample representative
of the population they wish to measure? This is a major
problem with election forecasts because the goal there
is to determine who in fact is going to vote in the
election. This is tough to do. Measuring those who will
not vote can lead to error.
Self Selection Bias
One of the major problems with a poll is
when it allows people to select themselves
to be participants. This creates bias in favor
of whichever side of the issue contains the
most passionate opinion holders. Selection
into a sample has to be determined by a
random process that prevents this bias.
Timing
Opinions can change over time.
We’ve noted this before, but
sometimes the change can be
driven due to recent events. If a
poll is taken after an event that
impacts – temporarily – public
opinion, the result is likely to be
distorted.
Sometimes polls have shown shifts in opinions
that seemed unusual until it was noted that an
outside event impacted the result.
Example: Suppose you were studying attitudes
about civil liberties and wanted to find out what
people thought about warrantless surveillance.
Also suppose you planned to conduct a poll in
mid September 2001. The results would have
been affected by the 9/11 attacks.
Framing Effects / Question
Ordering
The concept of a framing effect builds from
the idea that many issues people have
opinions about are complex. As a result we
can be ambivalent about them.
We might have contradictory opinions
about an issue because there are merits
and detriments to both sides if it.
Example: We tend like both privacy
and security from criminal
activities.
But some of the measures used to
fight, investigate and prevent crime
– including terrorist activities –
involve activities that compromise
individual privacy.
Sometimes respondents to polls can be enticed
to answer in contrary ways to a given question
depending upon how an issue has been framed
– often this involves adjusting the frame of
reference or the context that a person uses to
answer a question.
This is based on the idea that people formulate
answers to questions based on recent factors
that have been called to mind.
If someone is asked a question about
whether they approve or disapprove
of surveillance of cell phones, they are
likely to answer differently depending
upon whether they are thinking about
the possibility of an imminent terrorist
attack or the possibility that
government is attempting to gather
information in order to control you .
Sometimes this frame of reference is based on
recent event (see the discussion of timing
below) but sometimes the poll itself can create
these frames of reference by bringing certain
items to a respondents attention by asking
questions about them in the poll.
This suggests that polls – depending upon how
they order questions – can create bias. In other
words, they can influence how people are likely
to answer key questions towards the end of the
poll.
Good polls avoid this by randomly
ordering questions.
Acquiescence Bias
A related problem happens with the answer
choices people are given. Pollsters noticed years
ago that people have a greater tendency to say
“yes” than “no” to questions. This leads to the
obvious problem. It is addressed by alternating
the answer options in order to compensate for
this tendency. If this is not done, the poll’s
results will be inaccurate.
Question Wording
The impact of words has been long
noted.
“Abuse of words has been the
great instrument of sophistry and
chicanery, of party, faction, and
division of society.”
- John Adams
The simple point here is that words
matter. Certain terms have – over
the course of time – acquired a
positive or negative connotations.
This can impact the results of
surveys presented to respondents
to a poll.
The most recent example is in polls that ask for
opinions about the recent health care law.
Opinions about “Obamacare” are more negative
than opinions about “The Affordable Care Act.”
Each refers to the same thing, but the former
has a more negative connotation. This means
that poll results will vary depending on which
words the pollster chooses to use. Which biases
the results of the survey.
Similar results have been found regarding
questions about welfare.
When the word “welfare” is used in a poll
about support for poverty programs,
opinions tend to be negative. But when the
question asks about the programs
themselves – Head Start for example –
opinions tend to be positive.
The framers of the Constitution were aware of the
importance of proper word choice.
Earlier we mentioned the conflicts over what to call the
person who heads the executive branch. Some argued
that “president” was not dignified enough because all
that implied was that the person in that offices presides
over the branch. But that was why some argued the
term was useful. If the word “governor” was used, it
would imply the person would be active. This might
end up being the case of course, but not reason to
make that obvious.
This is an important observation
because it helps us understand a
lot of what drives politics.
A great deal of study goes into
determining what words to use in
crafting debates.
An old political scientist argued that the
ability to determine the words used in
debates helped determine who would win
the debate.
Some political consultants focus
specifically on determining what
words should be used to promote
or oppose policy proposals.
One example is Frank Luntz, who
helped craft the terminology used
in the Contract with America.
He continues to advise Republicans
on what words to use when
making arguments.
One of his suggestions was to start
calling the “estate tax” the “death
tax.”
He also made suggestions about
how to argue against the
Affordable Care Act:
The Language of Health Care 2009
The Language of Health Care
The Language of Financial Reform
More recently Democratic strategists have
learned how to craft words to their
advantage as well.
A recent vote on the debt ceiling went
better than expected partially because
Democrats began using the term “default”
to describe opposition to raising it.
Question: How easily can public
opinion be manipulated? If it is
easy, then what does this say for
the democratic nature of our
government?
Fourth – and final - Topic
What is the content of public
opinion in the US?
This is a large topic to cover – and
some things have been said about
this in previous slides - but its wise
to make a few generalizations
about what has been discovered
about American public opinion
over history.
Here are just a few general
observations
1 - There is a great deal of agreement
– in the abstract – on the basic values
the nation is based upon.
But there can be disagreement about
these values in how they are applied.
Concrete examples of how values are
in fact applied provides context that
can lead to disagreement.
Are certain ideas uniquely
American?
The Unalienable Rights?
A bit of irony: Though the US is
based on the idea of free speech,
the country itself is based on
certain principles that tend to be
agreed to by most Americans.
Popular Sovereignty
Democracy
Self Rule
Individual Rights
Individual Freedom
Equal Opportunity
These are articulated in the
country’s fundamental documents
and reinforced by schools, families
and peer groups.
Question: Are these sincerely held
by individuals or is there pressure
to conform to the tyranny of the
majority?
Was Mill right?
Remember that these values are
also taught in school as well.
Concepts like “freedom” and
“equality” are also abstract. It is
relatively easy to find agreement
on abstract issues.
Disagreement tends to emerge
when these concepts are made
more concrete.
One person’s understanding of
“freedom” may not be the same as
another.
Example: We might agree that
individual freedom is a
fundamental value, but disagree
about what specific things people
should be free to do.
Should drug use and sexual activity
be personal choices, or can they be
subject to societal rules?
People may have different
definitions of “freedom” and
different places they draw the line
between liberty and order.
Should we be free to discriminate
based on race of gender?
And how rigidly does one define
equality? How much inequality is
someone willing to accept?
Another example: Is there really
equal opportunity in America?
Answers can differ based on
personal experience
What about the right to privacy?
We might think that privacy is a
good thing, but disagree over what
we should have privacy to do.
A consistent question asked over
the course of American history is
whether the public is rational?
Can the general population provide
a solid foundation for democracy?
Can a democracy survive if based
on an ignorant public?
2 – The level of knowledge in the
general population is pretty low,
but this varies depending on how
politically involved a person
happens to be.
This is a commonly asked question.
Does the public have factual
knowledge of politics, government,
and current events?
Poll results suggest that they do
not. Recent example: People tend
to overestimate the amount of
crime that exists. What does that
mean for the types of crime
policies the general public is likely
to support? Will those policies be
appropriate given the actual nature
of crime?
We discussed this in the introductory
section, but there is plenty of evidence
backed up by polls that the general
population does not have in depth
knowledge of public affairs. People tend to
overestimate their level of knowledge
about governmental policies and
personnel.
- Public Ignorance and Democracy
3 – While individuals might be
unstable in their beliefs, there is
evidence that taken together – the
opinion of the general population
is actually quite stable.
The argument here is that people
who tend to change their minds on
different things tend to cancel
themselves out.
The average of all these opinions
leads to steadiness in opinions
themselves.
There is a signal in the noise.
This argues against the
assumptions made about public
opinion made by the framers of
the Constitution, but ironically one
that does not argue against the
premise that people are instable in
their beliefs.
The End