7.4: Sources of Public Opinion

Political attitudes differ because people experience politics in different ways. Government enables a diverse society to solve collective action problems, but those problems (and their solutions) impact certain people more than others. Even defining what counts as a problem is tricky. A status quo that some find intolerable may be ideal for others.

People’s differential experiences with politics are often linked to their identities. An identity is a stable, defining characteristic of a person that affects many aspects of their life. A person’s identities might include their sex, age, race, ethnicity, education level, class, religion, sexual orientation, occupation, or party. (Note that identities are distinct from character and personality traits, such as “hardworking” or “shy.”)

Not every personal characteristic is an identity for every person who shares it. Two people may both classify themselves as Catholic, but the one who regularly attends Mass, strives to abide by Catholic teachings, and participates in parish activities probably identifies more as a Catholic than the one who grew up Catholic but no longer practices. Similarly, two people may both consider themselves Chinese-American, but that identity is probably more central to the one who speaks Chinese, practices Chinese cultural customs, and maintains a social network of many other Chinese-Americans than to the one who does not. A person can be a member of a group without necessarily identifying with that group.

Public opinion data suggest that identities strongly influence political attitudes and opinions. Large gaps persist between the political opinions of different demographic groups. For example, in the United States, on average, blacks tend to be significantly more likely than whites to support the Democratic Party. This does not mean that all blacks support the Democratic Party. It also does not mean that any specific person supports the Democratic Party because he or she is black. Nevertheless, the trend is sizable and stable enough to suggest an important relationship between race and partisanship in the United States.

Not all influences on public opinion are as stable as identities. Events can have temporary or lasting effects on how people think and feel about politics. The president’s job approval (as shown in Figure 7.2 below) tends to sharply increase at the start of a war but gradually decrease as costs and casualties mount. Presidents also tend to get credit or blame for the economy while they are in office, regardless of whether they deserve it. Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and political scandals can have both short-term and long-term impacts on what issues citizens think are most important, what policies they support, how much they trust their government, and many other opinions.

Figure 7.2: Presidential approval, 1945–2025 (Source: The American Presidency Project)

Events can also interact with identities to produce differential effects on public opinion. The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon shocked and horrified many Americans, but New Yorkers and Washingtonians experienced them most directly—and American Muslims encountered heightened levels of fear, suspicion, and hatred from non-Muslims in the aftermath. The COVID-19 pandemic affected just about everyone around the world, but its effect differed depending on whether a person was a healthcare worker, had school-aged children, and so on. In these and other cases, our identities affect how we experience events, which in turn shapes how those events impact our political perspectives.

The many different factors that influence our opinions make it impossible to credibly claim that any one person’s opinion is caused by any one factor, or to determine precisely how much of that opinion is attributable to a specific identity or event. Even asking people why they believe, feel, or think a certain way may not reveal the truth: we often don’t know or don’t want to admit the true reasons behind our opinions. Still, the trends we observe are robust enough to make conclusions about public opinion overall, even if the individual opinions underlying them remain hard to fully explain.