Attitude Stability and Attitude Change

1. Attitude Stability and Attitude Change April 18, 2011

2. Objectives By the end of this meeting, you should be able to: • Describe the main theories of individual attitude change. • Argue whether or not public opinion is sufficiently informed or thought-out to make important choices. • Discuss the contrast in aggregate and individual-level opinion stability.

3. Think About in Groups • How much attention should the average individual pay attention to politics? • What does survey research show about most individuals and their level of political sophistication?

4. The Lack of Awareness • “In late 1986…when George Bush was halfway into his second term as vice-president of the United States, 24 percent of the general public either failed to recognize his name or could not say what office he held. • People at this level of inattentiveness can have only the haziest idea of the policy alternatives about which pollsters regularly ask them to state opinions, and such ideas as they do have must often be relatively innocent of the effects of elite discourse” (Zaller 1992, 16).

5. Micro Level Opinion • 1960: The American Voter (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes) • Based on data from 1956 found that public broke down roughly into: • 12% Ideologues • 42% Group Benefit • 24% Nature of the Times • 22% No issue content

6. Micro Level Opinion • Most voters are unable to name their elected representatives or the positions that national political figures hold • Voters are also unable to identify other countries even those that have been extensively covered in the media

7. Knowledge and Opinions • While American voters are generally poorly informed, differences in information levels are related to certain differences in opinions • Generally, better informed voters are more likely to favor more liberal attitudes on social and foreign policy issues than less well informed voters. • On the other hand, less well informed voters are more likely to favor a more liberal attitudes towards government spending than the more well informed.

8. Depth of Opinions • Generally opinions are not deeply held within the public • 1964: The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (Converse) found: • Lack of opinion “constraint” • Low association (tau) between individuals’ attitudes toward similar issues (e.g., employment, education, federal housing). • Opinion “instability” • For some issues, only 20% of the public have stable attitudes. The rest, “non attitudes” • Panel Study

9. Does ideological inconsistency imply irrationality?

10. Depth of Opinions • Partisanship is by far the most stable opinion/attitude, but it can be thought of as more of a personal identifier • Many people hold strong opinions on a small number of issues • Abortion is one of the most stable attitudes • Experiments where people are exposed to counterarguments frequently found changes in opinions

11. Depth of Opinions • Converse is known for positing the idea of non-attitudes (sometimes referred to as a top of the head response) • Other explanations for response instability: • Measurement error • Response probability • Which of these is most troubling for democracy?

12. The Problem of Ideology • Ideological terms like liberal and conservative are frequently used by academics, pundits and newspapers as a way to categorize issues, approaches and attitudes • These labels are very different by country • Despite their prevalence most voters are uncomfortable with the terms and frequently use them incorrectly • American Voter (1960) • Stimson

13. Partisanship • Most Americans (roughly 9 out of 10) classify themselves as partisan either strong, weak or leaning • Generally stronger partisans tend to be better informed and hold stronger and more extreme attitudes towards issues • Citizens are able to differentiate the parties on the issues and the sense that parties are further apart on the issues is growing in the electorate

14. Party Identification • Psychological attachment or ‘affective orientation’ (American Voter) • ‘Running Tally’ (Fiorina)

15. Converting Information into Opinions • Functional theories: Katz • Utilitarian • Ego defense • Knowledge • Value-expressive • Functional theories: Downs (1958)- voters use instrumental rationality or use a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to opinions • How would this work? • Does it seem likely to occur this way?

16. Converting Information into Opinions • Learning Theory • Hovland, Janis, Kelly • Transfer of affect • On line processing (Lodge, Steenbergen and Brau) • Elaboration Likelihood Model • Central route • Peripheral route • Receive-Accept-Sample (Zaller) • What does it mean for survey design?

17. Discussion • Is the American public informed enough to make the necessary political choices? • How do people with low levels of political information make political choices? • Why is the public so poorly informed? • Paradox of aggregate-level opinion.

18. For Next Time • Read Clawson & Oxley, Chapters 11 & 12 • Which would you rather have: Elected officials who stick to their campaign promises rigidly or elected officials who make policy decisions based on public opinion polls? Why? • Given the evidence in chapter 11, would you say public policy in the U.S. is a clear reflection of public preferences? Why or why not?