7.1: Public Opinion and Political Socialization

“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

—James Madison ⁽¹⁾

What is Public Opinion?

Public opinion refers to an individual’s aggregated political view. In Federalist #10 James Madison referred to “popular governments” that base the source of their legitimacy and authority on the people rather than some other source like God, and that take into account peoples’ aggregate views when making policy. Indeed, if democracy is to mean anything it must refer to a government that periodically turns to the people to either make decisions directly or to select representatives to make decisions. In addition, the government's policies should align with what the public wants it to do.

Political Socialization

Political scientists and psychologists have long been interested in how people develop their individual approach to politics and political issues. There is no definitive answer, nor is there ever likely to be. Indeed, a mix of influences unique to each individual is likely to be the real source of our ideologies, attitudes, opinions, prejudices, and dispositions. We are each subject to political socialization, or “the process by which people acquire their political attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and behaviors.” ⁽²⁾ Here are four examples.

Innate--Research suggests that our political orientation may be in part a hard-wired component of our personality. Just as two siblings born to the same parents and raised in the same household can have vastly different personalities, we may be born with dispositions that affect the political ideologies we develop. Psychologists and political scientists have found that conservatives and progressives appear to have an innate difference in threat perception, with conservatives more attuned to potential threats. Similarly, conservatives may be more fearful of those threats and want government to respond to them with military or police forces and/or laws. Conservatives have a higher tolerance for ambiguity and a lower tolerance for disorder than do progressives. ⁽³⁾ Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has argued convincingly that political beliefs come from different moral standpoints. For instance, take the issue of fairness. According to Haidt, progressives see fairness as one of access to basic resources, whereas conservatives see fairness as getting what one deserves based on effort expended. In other words, both conservatives and progressives value fairness, but they may have innately different moral understandings of the concept. ⁽⁴⁾

In Federalist #10 James Madison wrote that,

“the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.” ⁽⁵⁾

Occupation--In other words, one’s occupation is intimately tied to one’s vested interests and political opinions. For example, teachers have different opinions than do members of the general public on issues like teacher pay, vouchers, the impact of teachers’ unions, and how often students should be subject to standardized tests. ⁽⁶⁾ Factory workers are likely to have a different opinion of globalization and offshoring jobs than the people who own the company. Blue-collar workers are likely to have a different opinion of unskilled immigrants than are white-collar workers who don’t have to compete with such immigrants for jobs.

Those around us--Family and friends also shape our political opinions. Children are raised by parents who have more or less well-developed political outlooks and in families with particular moral or ethical values. Parental viewpoints can transfer to children. Psychologist Eugene Thomas found an average 75 percent congruence rate between college-age students and their parents with respect to political attitudes. Moreover, two aspects of the family dynamic contributed the most to fostering parent-child attitude congruence: the extent to which the parents were dedicated to political causes and the extent to which the parents explicitly tutored children “into an awareness of the political realm.” ⁽⁷⁾ As children grow, they engage with other young people who influence and reinforce their attitudes and behaviors. Sociologist Denise Kandel noted that “adolescents who share certain prior attributes in common tend to associate with each other and tend to influence each other as the result of continued association.” ⁽⁸⁾ What Dr. Kandel described is the importance of homophily, which is “the tendency for individuals to associate with similar others,” and it is “one of the most persistent findings in social network analysis.” ⁽⁸⁾

Education--What about education? Broadly speaking, formal education can play a role in fostering tolerance for people who are racially, ethnically, or religiously different from us—assuming that the school is itself inclusive and promotes those values. Formal education also tends to promote what is known as political efficacy, or a person’s belief that they can influence public policy through their political behaviors like voting, demonstrating, donating to candidates, and organizing collectively for action. The famous psychologist Jean Piaget once asked and answered an important question: “How are we to bring children to the spirit of citizenship and humanity which is postulated by democratic societies? By the actual practice of democracy at school.” ⁽¹⁰⁾

References

1. James Madison, Federalist #10. November 23, 1787. The Avalon Projectat Yale Law School.
2. Diana Owen, “Political Socialization,” Oxford Bibliographies. July 20, 2014.
3. Emily Laber-Warren, “Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives,” Scientific American. September 1, 2012. Vinita Mehta, “Why Liberals and Conservatives Think So Differently,” Psychology Today. February 27, 2017.
4. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012.
5. James Madison, Federalist #10. November 23, 1787. The Avalon Projectat Yale Law School.
6. Paul E. Peterson, Michael Henderson, and Martin R. West, Teachers Versus the Public: What Americans Think About Schools and How to Fix Them. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2014.
7. L. Eugene Thomas, “Political Attitude Congruence Between Politically Active Parents and College-Age Children: An Inquiry into Family Political Socialization,” Journal of Marriage and Family. May, 1971. Page 379.
8. Denise B. Kandel, “Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships,” American Journal of Sociology. September, 1978. Page 435.
9. Per Block and Thomas Grund, “Multidimensional Homophily in Friendship Networks,” Network Science. August, 2014. Page 189.
10. Ralph Mosher, Robert Kenny, and Andrew Garrod, Preparing for Citizenship. Teaching Youth to Live Democratically. Westport/London: Praeger, 1994. Piaget quoted on page xi.

Media Attributions

• Single Payer © New York Times/CBS News Poll is licensed under a Public Domain license