PUBLIC INFORMATION About WORLD AFFAIRS

PUBLIC INFORMATION About WORLD AFFAIRS JOHN P. ROBINSON SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER I ! ISR Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS by John P. Robinson SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan March 1967 PREFACE This report is an opportunity to present some new data along with some older studies on public Information regarding world affairs. While drawing from a wide selection of studies, it is certainly not meant to be a definitive review of the large amount of research material that is available on this complex topic. Dr. Martin Patchen was responsible for substantial portions of the outline and content of the report. Helpful comments and suggestions were provided by Drs. Angus Campbell, Bernard Cohen, Philip Converse, Samuel Hayes, Robert Hefner, Alfred Hero, Kent Jennings, Herbert Kelman, Michael Margolis, James Rosenau, James Swinehart, and Stephen Withey. Misses Hinda Manson and Roberta Rehner made significant contributions to the data analysis and preparation of the report. Particular appreci• ation goes to Virginia Nye for her timely and careful typing of the final manuscript. The final report was edited by Dr. Stephen Withey. Special permission to use previously unpublished data from a study in Detroit (the 1964 Detroit Area Study) was kindly given by Drs. Robert Hefner and Sheldon Levy. Data on the Detroit population without a bibliographic reference come from this study. ii Table of Contents Page I. Introduction and Background 1 II. Results of Exposure to Information 7 III. Sociological Correlates of Foreign Affairs Information Levels. 12 IV. Mass Media as an Information Source 18 V. Effects of Face-to-Face Communication 34 VI. Developing Interest in World Affairs 46 VII. Problems in Changing Public Response 51 Appendix A (Magazine Classification and Circulation) 54 Appendix B (Media Questions Used in SRC and DAS Studies) 55 Appendix C (Media preference Data) 61 References 65 iii I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Extent of Public Ignorance One of the many popular assumptions about the workings of our demo• cratic society pictures the average citizen, surrounded by mass media, as an interested, informed follower of U.S. foreign policy and other world events. Few notions have been so consistently contradicted by findings of social surveys. Survey researchers and other social scientists who have examined the results of typical poll data have found that the vast majority of citizens hold pictures of the world that .are at best sketchy, blurred and without detail or at worst so impoverished as to beggar description. These restricted horizons become particularly evident when one examines the public's inability to give satisfactory answers to objective questions related to world affairs. Of course the criteria for "satisfactory answers" implies a judgment that needs to be documented. The following examples illustrate the general level of public enlightenment. They are, as are almost all of the data used in this report, based on representative samples of the general adult public. 1. Awareness of troubled areas: In answer to the question, "Have you heard anything about the war in Viet Nam?", 25 percent of a cross-section sample in the spring of 1964 (before the Presidential election in the fall of that year but after over two years of combat involving American troops) claimed they had not (Patchen, 1964). In a separate study made at the same time in the Detroit area, 37 percent of the respondents claimed they had not heard about any activity in Viet Nam and Laos. In the late autumn of 1961, 23 per• cent of a national sample were unaware of any trouble either in Berlin or in the Congo (Withey, 1962). 2. Knowledge of the characteristics of foreign countries: In the Patchen (1964) study, 28 percent of the population sampled were unaware of the exist• ence of a Communist government in China, and an additional 29 percent did not know of the existence of the alternate Chinese government on Formosa. In the January, 1964, Detroit Area Study, 29 percent were unable to answer the question on Chinese governments correctly. In the same study, only 64 percent correctly said that India did not have a Communist government and oniy 60 per• cent knew that France had developed and tested its own atomic weapons. 3. Knowledge of the location of foreign countries: In the Detroit study, 34 and 51 percent, respectively, correctly answered that Afghanistan and Mongolia were not In Africa. In June, 1955, about 90 percent of the national population could not accurately place the country of Bulgaria on a map of Europe (Erskine, 1963a). 1 2 4. Knowledge of personalities connected with foreign affairs: In March, 1959, about 73 percent of the sampled public could not name the Secretary of Defense. In August, 1959) 22 percent had not .heard of Fidel Castro (Erskine, 1962). In 1964, only 54 percent of the public had read or heard about Mao Tse Tung (Patchen, 1965). 5. Knowledge of foreign policies and events: In November, 1962, 71 per• cent of the public had heard of the Peace Corps, and in April of the same year only 13 percent could be classified as having any correct picture of President Kennedy's proposed plans to increase foreign trade; however, 46 percent said they knew on a simple yes-no question. In December, 1961, only 22 percent of the American public had heard of the Common Market (Erskine,- 1962) and almost half of this group had an incorrect impression. In 1959, six months after the launching of Sputnik I, 36 percent of a national sample could at best give vague or erroneous information about the purposes of space satellites (See Table 1) (McLeod and Swinehart, 1960). Although not documented here, the field of foreign affairs is not alone in being an area of public ignorance and misinformation. Science, domestic affairs, local government, and other areas show a similar lack of public attention. One can also note that studies have found large segments of the adult public lacking the basic numerical and verbal skills expected of high school pupils that are required to assimilate complex news material (See, for instance, Lane and Sears, 1964; Erskine, 1963a). These examples cannot be taken to mean that all information related to foreign affairs is unknown by large segments of the public. Only 2 of 557 respondents in the Detroit Study said that Russia had not developed and tested its own atomic weapons, and in 1960, 96 percent of the public had heard of the U-2 incident (Erskine, 1963a). Results from the Detroit Area Study indi• cated that all sociological groupings in the community tended to share an elementary, mental "map" of the world that might not be very helpful in pin• pointing boundaries and locations on an official map of the world but did provide cross-group similarities in the classification of countries into the three categories--Western, African-Asian-neutral, and Communist. These data were replicated in a follow-up of the original study. Criticism may be levied at individual questions on surveys. For instance, in response to a question like, "Have you heard anything about the war in Viet Nam?" some respondents may know of hostilities but know of no special news or incidents in recent months and answer "No." One's awareness of national events may be quite high without being able to name a Secretary of Defense who has been in office only a short time. Some people might remember a portrait picture but forget the name "Castro." But the picture of lack of information is too general to be seriously threatened by criti• cisms of any small group of items. The nature of Information is also open to question. In the above examples the items of information were specific and objective. France has developed its own atomic devices, Morocco is in Africa and Bulgaria does belong on a particular spot of the map of Europe. But it may well be argued 3 that most foreign affairs information does not come to the public in such objective, educational-test form and even less is it likely to be remembered in that format. Psychological research into what objects "mean" to people (Osgood, et al., 1957) suggests that the most important aspect of the mean• ing of an object is its evaluative content--!.e., whether it is seen as good or bad, dangerous or friendly. Thus, despite some quite striking objective resemblances between Russia and the United States in population, size, world power, scientific achievements, climate, etc., four times as many of the Detroit Area Study population saw the Philippines as more "similar" to the United States than Russia, and six times as many saw Cuba and Russia as alike as saw the United States and Russia as similar. This strong emphasis on political criteria may reflect the fact that foreign events are "coded" as good or bad, relevant or irrelevant to U.S. welfare, while many of the details and names associated with the events are forgotten. Perhaps informa• tion on foreign affairs attracts attention only when it has some evaluative connection that hits close to home. For many this evaluative connection may require a background frame of reference that simply does not exist except in terms of clear international threat. Although this report will be restricted to the more objective defini• tions of information, it should be remembered that much of what is labeled "opinion" or "attitude" comprises extremely important facets of informa• tion. In turn, these attitudes play crucial filtering roles in determining what information will be sought or attended to and how it will be interpreted. Factors in the Information Transmission Process whatever one's position on the role of public opinion in the govern• mental process, it would be naive to simply blame the mass media for the low level of public information about foreign affairs.

Load more