Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: A Value-Based Model of Opinion Formation

Suny At Stony Brook, Stony Brook NY

Investigators

Abstract

This project integrates two literatures within political science which seek to explain the policy preferences of the mass public. The first, a psychological approach, argues that preferences are a function of relatively stable dispositions, such as differences in motivation, needs and values. In other words, citizens match their own priorities to the content of specific policy options. The second, a sociological approach, suggests that opinion formation is a product of interaction with political elites, whereby citizens turn to trusted others for information relevant to making a judgment, and thus obtain their opinions second hand. The theory tested in this project argues that each literature has made important contributions, but a more complete understanding of public opinion requires their simultaneous consideration. More specifically, the investigators argue that citizens form their opinions through two distinct paths, and that the operative path is determined by the complexity of the issue itself. When issues are "easy" (i.e., non-technical, symbolic) individual differences in psychological dispositions directly constrain preferences, as argued with the former literature. However, when issues are "hard" (i.e., technical, new on agenda), citizens must turn to trusted elites for guidance. Importantly, however, this model posits that elite trust itself is judged on the basis of the perception of shared dispositions between citizen and elite. In essence, dispositional similarities serve as cues, or heuristics, for delegation. Citizens trust those they consider to be most like themselves. Such dispositions can thus have both direct effects on preferences, as well as indirect effect through elite cue-taking. The theory and its implications are tested using diverse empirical methods. While this is a meaningful theoretical contribution in its own right, the model developed herein also has important implications for contemporary American politics. Some of the most consequential issues currently being debated at the elite level are prototypic "hard" issues. In such cases, as argued above, citizens will turn to trusted elites. This project suggests that citizens do not necessarily generate trust assessments on the basis of criteria most relevant to the judgement at hand, but rather on the broader dispostional characteristics of the elites. Thus, dimensions of evalution irrelevant to a given policy judgment may indirectly influence citizen opion through cue-taking.