The "Positivity Bias" in Evaluations of Public Figures: Evidence Against Instrument Artifacts

Abstract

Observers of American political culture have frequently commented on the seeming cynicism, or at least cautious skepticism, with which Americans evaluate their political leaders. On this side of the Atlantic, democracy has been thought to flourish because citizens withhold the sycophantic fealty to their rulers that marked the palmiest days of roy alty, or of totalitarian dictatorship. Instead, Americans supposedly view the frailties of their very human political leaders with a critical eye. This characterization of skeptical American citizenry may be too romantic. Of course, for most of the nation's history, no systematic data exist on the public's evaluations of political leaders. But with the rise of widespread public opinion polling such data do exist, and show a surprisingly favorable evaluation of individual political leaders. The Gallup Poll, for example, asked Americans about specific politicians 535 times in the 1935-75 period: 76 percent of these were evaluated favorably. During the 1960fs and 1970fs, the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center assessed 50 leaders and found 76 percent evaluated favorably; the highly-reputed California Poll asked about 263 leaders with 84 percent evaluated positively (Sears, 1976).