CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR OPINION AND ACTION IN THE REALM OF POLITICS DON A LD R. KINDER, University of Michigan Fewconcepts are more central to the analysis of democra­ public opinion into political action-from a social psycho­ tic politics than public opinion. It is, or seems to be, a com­ logical perspective . pletely familiar idea, simply part of the landscape of poli­ My ambition is to provide a set of analytic categories tics we take for granted today. Yet to the specialist, getting helpful in organizing the vast empirical literature on public a grip on public opinion is not that easy. Public opinion is, opinion. In this respect I am trying to follow the admoni­ as Converse (I 975) once put it, "impalpable," "amor­ tions of Max Weber, who argued that the creation of clear phous ," and ·'mercurial" (p . 77). Public opinion is hard to and useful concepts was social theory's noblest aspiration. pin down. Clear and useful concepts are certainly what we need here; Conceding that my subject is complicated and difficult, in their absence, making sense of the empirical literature I nevertheless hope to say something systematic and intel­ on public opinion is a daunting and perhaps impossible ligible about it here. My particular topic is public opinion, task. It is alarming , actually : thousands of reports have but the chapter can be read more broadly as another install­ been published; scores more no doubt on their way to com­ ment in the continuing conversation between political sci­ pletion. In some ways this activity is all to the good; it re­ ence and social psychology. This conversation began, one flects an unquenchable curiosity for what V. 0. Key (1961) could say, just after the tum of the century with publication once called the " eerie entity" of public opinion (p. 14). of Graham Wallas 's Human Nature in Politics (1908), and But such relentless activity also means that students of it has been carried on over the decades by Harold Lasswell public opinion , should they glance up from their own (1930) , Solomon Asch (1987), Carl Hovland (1959) , work , risk being buried under an avalanche of contrasting Robert Lane (1959a , 1973), David Sears (1969), Philip claims and diverse findings. My hope is to provide a set of Converse (1970) , Herbert Simon (1985), and William clear and useful categories so that the empirical literature McGuire (1993), among others. Following in these large on public opinion can be understood as something more footsteps, and now nearing the end of the twentieth cen­ than "just one damn finding after another," as George tury, I take up here a series of political topics-the compe­ Homans once wrote, in a different but related context.. tence of citizens , the ingredients of opinion, the power of The awesome and unceasing dedication of public opin­ social context and political discussion , the translation of ion researchers means that I could easily squander my al­ lotted space on bibliography alone-an impressive feat, perhaps, but not a very useful one. To make room for text, I have been brutally selective in my choice of examples , and I am grateful to Robert Abelson, Larry Bartels , Philip Conver se, I have paid primary attention to work completed since the Steven Rosenstone , David Sears , Janet Weiss, and John Zaller for the last edition of the Handbook (Kinder & Sears, 1985). That excellence and timeliness of their advice, and to Julie Weatherbee for still leaves me with plenty to do , since the conversation be­ heroic assistance in preparing the bibliography. Last but not least , I thank the editors - Daniel Gilbert , Susan Fiske, and Gardner tween political science and social psychology has been es­ Lindzey-for superb editing and remarkable patience. pecially lively recently. 778 Chapter 34 I Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics 779 The field of public opinion today is oven-un with theo­ work and therefore comes, for the most part, from a partic­ ries, concepts, methods, and techniques borrowed directly ular time and place. The lion's share of what I will say from social psychology. Books and journals are laced with about public opinion applies, technically, to American pub­ references to on-line versus memory-based models of in­ lic opinion in the post-World War II period. The field formation processing (Lodge & McGraw, 1995); to shows a growing interest in comparative analysis (e.g., schemas, frames, and expertise (Judd & Downing , l 990; Cain, Ferejohn, & Fiorina, 1987; lnglehart, 1990; Lewis­ Nelson & Kinder , 1996; Rahn , I 993); to protocol analysis Beck , 1988; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) , and I will take and reaction time (Fazio & Dovidio, 1992; Feldman & advantage of this welcome development when I can. Still, Zaller, 1992). Ideas have always been making their way enthusiasm for quantitative social science has been primar­ over the border from psychology into political science, but ily an American phenomenon, and a recent one at that, and something does seem to be new here. A generation ago my chapter necessarily reflects this fact. Angus Campbell and his associates at the Survey Research This admission raises the question of historical speci­ Center of the University of Michigan were branded as so­ ficity. Since World War II, stunning changes have come to cial psychologists and charged with promoting the psycho­ all aspects of American life, politics included: the rising of logical approach to voting-and why? Not because they social movements pressing for civil and political rights; pe­ borrowed specific hypotheses from psychology. Apart from riods of war and peace; profound adjustments in the na­ a nod to field theory and occasional acknowledgment of tional and international economy; seasons of comparative the idea of reference group, the Michigan team was largely domestic tranquillity and political consolidation then shat­ indifferent to theoretical developments in psychology. tered by eruptions of protest and political experimentation; Their approach was regarded as psychological primarily in the demise of the Soviet empire; the ascendancy of Japan that it vested explanatory power in the concept of attitude. as an economic superpower; transformations in the land­ As Campbell et al. put it in The American Voter (1960), scape of campaigning; dramatic fluctuations in the balance "The partisan choice the individual voter makes depends of power between Democrats and Republicans; and more. in an immediate sense on the strength and direction of the From the perspective of a science of public opinion, such elements comprising a field of psychological forces, where changes could spell trouble. If everything is changing, these elements are interpreted as attitudes toward the per­ erecting a sturdy framework for understanding public opin­ ceived objects of national politics " (p. 9). Although the ion, which itself must be responsive to the changes that Lewinian metaphor is not hard to detect in the Michigan have marked the last half century, seems all the more diffi­ group's approach, social psychological influences are now cult. But I prefer to regard these changes as offering an op­ a good bit more visible and explicit. 1 portunity. Think of American society since World War II as Along with this more self-conscious boo-owing from a (gigantic) natural experiment; be grateful for the dy­ psychology have come notable advances in methodological namism of American society and the ample variance it has sophistication. When V. 0. Key complained more than so generously provided us . thirty years ago about social psychologists hijacking the The chapter begins, as chapters of this sort often do, study of public opinion, he nevertheless found it possible with a definition. The German historian Hennann Oncken to compliment them for their "me thodological virtuosity·• once wrote that public opinion is "vag ue and fluctuating"; (Key, 1961, p. vii). If Key was impressed then, he would be that it "em bodies a thousand possibilities of variation"; astonished today. Looking back over the last decade and a and yet, "when all is said and done, everyone knows, if put half, he would be bowled over by the improvements in sta­ to it, what public opinion means" (Lazarsfeld, 1957). tistical analysis (Bartels & Brady, 1993) ; the proliferation Maybe, but on the chance that everyone doesn't know, and of experimental studies of public opinion (Kinder & Pal­ acknowledging at the outset that I will likely please no one frey, 1993); a growing sensitivity to issues of measurement completely, I will try to say what public opinion is and and error (Achen, 1983; Bartels, 1993; Brehm, 1993; Kros­ what it is not, and also to suggest how public opinion nick & Berent , 1993; Rosenstone, Hansen, & Kinder, should be measured. 1986); and a deeper curiosity about the psychological That accomplished, the chapter next takes up a se­ processes underlying the construction and expression of quence of threats to the promise and practice of American opinion itself (Lo dge & McGraw, 1995 ; Schwarz & Sud­ democratic life. These are the allegations that, taken all man, 1996; Tourangeau & Rasinski , 1988; Zaller & Feld­ around, Americans are too ignorant, too intolerant, and too man, 1992). I do not mean to suggest that all the problems unsophisticated to participate wisely or even sensibly in afflicting research on public opinion have been neatly re­ the affairs of politics. These allegations constitute recurrent solved-the literature is as full of contention and debate as apprehensions about democracy in general and about the ever, as we will see-but it is hard not to be impressed with American experiment in self-government in particular, and how far the field has come in so brief a time. they provide a useful scheme for organizing large patches My review draws heavily on quantitative empirical of the empirical literature in a coherent way. This part of 780 Part Seven I InterdisciplinanJ Perspectives the chapter closes on a b1ighter note, with a rumination on and status were to be "bracketed," and participants in such an apparent remedy for the limitations of the average citi­ discussions were to deliberate as equals.