Individual-level Predictors of Leader and Public Support for the Use of Force

Abstract

A great deal of the research examining the structure of foreign policy attitudes has focused on the aggregate level. Page and Shapiro (1992; also see Knopf, 1998; Erikson, MacKuen, & Stimson, 2002; Isernia, Juhasz, & Rattinger, 2002) argued that the public as a whole exhibits consistent and coherent attitudes at the aggregate level. However, Althaus (2003) and Converse (2000) point out that the opinions of the “informed public” differ from those of the rest of the public in that they are more consistent and reliable. Most political information and knowledge is contained within a small portion of the electorate and these differences in information affect the quality and coherence of opinions (Althaus, 2003; Bartels, 1994; Converse, 2000; Zaller, 1992). Note, however, that Kuklinski and Hurley (1994; also see Stimson, 2004) argue that the bulk of the public compensates for this lack of information by taking cues from the “informed public” and trusted opinion leader sources, and therefore still maintain consistent and understandable opinions at the individual level. In addition, Page and Shapiro (1992) and others (Erikson et al., 2002; Wlezien, 1995; Enns & Kellstedt, 2008) find attitude stability and updating of beliefs to general political information occurs at all levels of political sophistication within the public. Specifically, Enns and Kellstedt (2008) demonstrated that members of the public, regardless of sophistication, updated their general policy mood in similar ways, demonstrating similar structure. Could this be the case for members of the public and political elites, at least to the extent that simple attitudes and policy preferences are expressed in opinion surveys?