Public Opinion

1
Public Opinion

• When attempting to analyze the role of public
  opinion in the policy-making process, it is
  important to first establish a precise definition
  of the concept. This is accomplished by breaking
  public opinion into its components and defining
  first what is meant by public and second by
  opinion.
• Public - a collection of individuals who share a
  common attitude
• This definition suggests that there is no single
  public. The idea of the general public has very
  little use to us in the study of public opinion.
  Consider that, on any given issue electoral or
  policy issues, the general public can be divided
  into 1 an apathetic public - the collection of
  individuals who are not paying attention to the
  issue and who do not express their attitudes in
  any meaningful way 2 an attentive public -
  the collection of individuals who are at least
  paying attention to the issue and who may express
  their attitudes in a meaningful way and 3 a
  mobilizible public(s) - the collection of
  individuals who are paying attention to the issue
  and who do express their attitudes in a
  meaningful way.
• The relative sizes of the apathetic, attentive,
  and mobilizible publics vary according to the
  visibility of the issue. Generally, though, as
  the visibility of the issue diminishes, the size
  of the apathetic public increases and the sizes
  of the attentive and mobilizible publics
  decrease.

Presidential elections
Some less visible issue
Attentive/mobilizible public
Apathetic public
Apathetic public
Attentive/mobilizible public
Mobilizers activists
Mobilizers activists
2

• Since only mobilizible publics express their
  attitudes in a meaningful way, only their
  opinions influence policy-making. To put the
  matter another way, government cannot respond to
  attitudes that are not expressed.
• Additionally, it should be noted here that there
  are three distinguishable types of mobilizible
  publics
• single-issue publics - a collection of
  individuals who are attentive to and mobilizible
  on one issue or a narrow range of issues
• organizational publics - a collection of
  individuals who are attentive to and mobilizible
  on issues that impact the organization or its
  membership the defining characteristic of this
  type of public is the presence of a formal
  organization
• ideological publics - a collection of individuals
  who are attentive to and mobilizible on any issue
  that relates to its ideology. An ideology (used
  loosely in this context) refers to a set of
  political, social, economic, religious, moral,
  ethical, or civic principles, ideals, or values.
• The main point to be emphasized in this
  discussion of public is that there is no single
  public. Any definition of public opinion must
  incorporate this fact if it is to be of much use
  in understanding the relationship between public
  opinion and public policy.
• Opinion - an opinion is an expressed attitude.
• The key to this definition is the word
  expressed. An attitude stands little chance of
  impacting policy-making unless it is expressed in
  a way that is meaningful - that is, in a way that
  can be processed by the political system.
• Defining public opinion - We can synthesize a
  useful definition of public opinion public
  opinion is the shared expressed attitudes of a
  collection of individuals on a matter of common
  concern.
• Meaningful Ways of Expressing Attitudes - four
  general means are open to any public that wishes
  to express its attitudes on an issue

3

• Characteristics of Public Opinion - There are a
  number of characteristics of public opinion which
  may, depending on the issue, affect the response
  of government
• distribution - refers to the numerical strength
  (usually expressed as a percentage or ratio) of
  the various opinions held on an issue. For
  example, when we say that 40 of survey
  respondents support position X, 35 support
  position Y, and 25 support position Z, we are
  referring to the distribution of opinions on the
  issue. Distribution is the most important
  characteristic of opinion on electoral issues it
  may be less important on policy issues. In other
  words, in elections, it is the distribution of
  opinions rather than any of the other
  characteristics listed below that determines the
  response of the political system output. If
  candidate A receives 49 of the vote, candidate B
  receives 42, and candidate C receives 8 of the
  vote, then the distribution determines the
  response - A wins! Frequently, it is useful to
  graphically depict the distribution of opinions
  on an issue - we can graph the distribution to
  get a picture of what it looks like.
  Distribution of opinions, then, is like the
  distribution of anything else wealth, grades,
  etc..
• intensity - this refers to the strength of
  feeling with which a public holds its attitude
  or the level of commitment a public has to its
  position. Public opinion polls generally
  report only the distribution of opinions on an
  issue. Even when surveys are designed to give
  respondents options to express how intensely
  they feel on an issue, there is no attempt made
  to determine how mobilizible their opinions are.
  Intensity, in this context then, refers to the
  strength of feeling as it affects a publics
  willingness to mobilize. It may be that, on some
  issues, government makes public policy consistent
  with the opinions of small, but intense (highly
  mobilized) minority publics rather than the
  opinions of large, but lethargic (not mobilized)
  majority publics.
• stability - Stability refers to both the
  distribution and intensity of opinions over time.
  On some issues, these are relatively stable
  (i.e..., gun control, abortion). On other issues
  (particularly electoral issues), however, opinion
  can be rather unstable, shifting dramatically
  sometimes over a short period of time. Judicious
  decision-makers may want to know something about
  the stability of opinions before embracing a
  particular policy alternative or associating
  himself with a candidate for another office.
• latency - Opinions may exist merely as a
  potential. Latency refers to a characteristic of
  opinions that have not yet been crystallized.
  Latent opinions relate to attitudes not about any
  specific issue but concern general assessments
  about direction (i.e.., Is the country, state,
  or city headed in the right direction?). These
  are called valence issues. Valence issues are
  most relevant to assessments of leadership
  performance. Frequently, valence issues (and
  latent opinions) are more important than specific
  issues in dictating the political fortunes of
  presidents, governors, and mayors. For example,
  Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996 largely
  because voters generally believed the country was
  headed in the right direction, despite persistent
  questions about Mr. Clintons character.
  Similarly, Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984
  largely because of favorable ratings on
  leadership even though polls showed that
  majorities of Americans disagreed with the
  president on important specific issues. George
  Bush and Jimmy Carter were defeated in their
  re-election bids largely because voters sensed
  that something (non-specific) was wrong. Polls
  did not indicate widespread disagreement with
  either president on specific policy issues.
• salience - Salience refers to the extent to which
  a particular issue affects a given public. To
  what degree does an issue connect for a public?
  Some issues are salient for a public and others
  are not. The salience of an issue seems likely
  to affect the previously-indicated
  characteristics of opinion (distribution,
  intensity, stability)?

4

• What Have We Learned From Public Opinion
  Research?
• Public opinion research can tell us much about
  the distribution, intensity, stability, latency,
  and salience of opinions on specific issues or
  specific leaders. We could spend much time
  detailing the findings of such research. In a
  more general vein, however, public opinion
  research over the past four decades has revealed
  four major trends
• Support for the political system remains fairly
  high among Americans, particularly when compared
  with the levels of support expressed in other
  (even democratic) countries. This support is
  expressed in a number of ways patriotism,
  respect for democratic processes and
  institutions, attachments to political symbols
  (flag), and comments such as Its not a perfect
  system, but its the best! This diffuse support
  is critical to the long-term maintenance and
  stability of the political system. See handout
  entitled Political Socialization.
• Levels of political knowledge are generally low.
  Americans seem to understand little about the
  operation of their political system, its
  institutions, processes, and officials or about
  the important issues facing their nation, states,
  or cities. Majorities cannot identify their
  representatives in Congress. How can such low
  levels of basic political knowledge be reconciled
  with high levels of support for the system?
• Feelings of political efficacy are generally low.
  Efficacy refers to the sense that a person has
  that what he or she thinks or does will have an
  effect on what government does. Low levels of
  efficacy are expressed when Americans say things
  such as Why should I bother to vote? The
  politicians dont care about people like me
  anyway. Low levels of efficacy are not
  universal. Political scientists are quick to
  point out that the degree of efficacy expressed
  by Americans is largely a function of their
  income and educational levels, as well as other
  demographic characteristics such as ethnicity and
  gender. How can generally low levels of
  efficacy be reconciled with generally high levels
  of support for the system? Are low feelings of
  efficacy among Americans consistent with the
  relatively low levels of political knowledge they
  demonstrate?
• The degree of political trust has eroded
  dramatically. Over the last several decades,
  public opinion polls have shown that fewer and
  fewer Americans believe that they can trust
  government to do the right thing. See Table 7.2
  on p. 240 of American Government and Politics
  Today. Are low levels of trust in government
  consistent with high levels of support for the
  political system? ....low levels of political
  knowledge? ....low levels of political efficacy?

5
Public Opinion

• When attempting to analyze the role of public
  opinion in the policy-making process, it is
  important to first establish a precise definition
  of the concept. This is accomplished by breaking
  public opinion into its components and defining
  first what is meant by public and second by
  opinion.
• Public - a collection of individuals who share a
  common attitude

Presidential elections
Some less visible issue
Attentive/mobilizible public
Apathetic public
Apathetic public
Attentive/mobilizible public
Mobilizers activists
Mobilizers activists
6

• Types of Mobilizible Publics
• single-issue publics
• organizational publics
• ideological publics
• Opinion - an opinion is an expressed attitude.
• Public opinion - the shared expressed attitudes
  of a collection of individuals on a matter of
  common concern.
• Meaningful Ways of Expressing Attitudes
• 1 voting in elections
• 2 direct communication
• 3 organized group activities
• 4 public opinion polling

7

• Characteristics of Public Opinion
• distribution
• intensity
• stability
• latency
• salience

8

• What Have We Learned From Public Opinion
  Research?
• high levels of support for the system
• low levels of political knowledge
• low levels of political efficacy
• eroding levels of political trust

9
Political Socialization - The Macro Process

• Diffuse support is critical to the maintenance
  and stability of the political system
• A political system must be able to generate or
  create diffuse support
• How? -coercion or force
• -manipulation of values/propaganda (hegemonic
  theory)
• -socialization (systems theory)
• Systems theory argues that values in support of
  the political system are transferred through a
  generational process, wherein the family teaches
  values that will allow the child to succeed in
  society. These values are reinforced by other
  important agents of the socialization process.
• Agents of socialization
• parental family
• 1. direct value transfer values having a direct
  political context party id, policy ideals
• 2. indirect value transfer values having an
  indirect political context conformity, respect
  for authority figures, competition for rewards,
  gender roles, moral values, religious values,
  self-reliance, work ethic, thrift, other
  economic values, etc. these may vary according
  to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, etc.
• schools and the educational system
• 1. direct value transfer curriculum (idealized
  forms), texts, pledge of allegiance, etc.
• 2. indirect value transfer conformity, respect
  for authority, competition for rewards,
  democratic decision-making, citizenship, etc.
  these may vary according to the clientele of the
  school
• peer groups

10
Political Socialization - The Micro Process

• In order for the political system to convert
  specific demands in public policy outputs, it
  must have support. The political system must be
  able to generate and sustain support if it is to
  remain stable. Perhaps the most important way to
  accomplish this objective is to instill favorable
  attitudes in people toward the symbols of the
  system. This process may be overt and
  orchestrated as hegemonic theory suggests or it
  may be a natural, generational process as systems
  theory argues.
• Through the processes of socialization we learn
  about our culture - its norms, traditions,
  values, and acceptable patterns of behavior.
  Political socialization is the process in which
  each of us learns about the political culture
  -that is, political norms, traditions, values,
  and acceptable patterns of political behavior.
  Through political socialization, people acquire
  attitudes and orientations toward the politics of
  their societies. Socialization is important
  because it usually teaches values and norms that
  support the system. If it is successful at a
  macro or systems-wide level it produces the
  broad, diffuse support that is critical to the
  stability of the political system. Socialization
  also at a micro or individual level is the
  process whereby each member of society comes to
  form his or her own specific set of political
  attitudes, values, beliefs, orientations, and
  opinions. Therefore, while the socialization
  process has some basic similarities for all
  members of society, there may be variations on
  the process for particular groups or sectors of
  society and for individuals.
• There are three major phases of the
  socialization process childhood, adolescence,
  and adulthood. While socialization takes place
  throughout a persons lifetime, some phases are
  critically important in shaping socialization at
  both the macro and micro levels. The
  primacy principle argues that the values that we
  learn earliest in life are the ones that form the
  core of our value systems when we become adults.
  For most of us, these values remain with us
  througout our entire lives. The structuring
  principle means that the values that we learn
  earliest in life help us structure or
  assimilate new and ,sometimes, competing
  information into our existing value systems.
  These two corrollary principles suggest that
  childhood, even very early childhood, is critical
  in the process of successful political
  socialization. They also imply that the most
  important agent of the political socialization
  process is the parental family.