Public opinion

Introduction
The English term "public opinion" dates back to the seventeenth century work by John Locke, An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which contains an early consideration of the importance
of public opinion in the ordering of politics. The term was derived from the French word lopinion,
which was first used in 1588 byMichel de Montaigne.[1]
This concept came about through the process of urbanization and other political and social forces.
For the first time, it became important what people thought, as forms of political contention changed.
It was introduced by James Madison that for a government to be democratic, it would be essential to
have strong and knowledgeable citizens that hold educated opinions that could be shared and
expressed.[2] Active citizens would then use this knowledge to participate in their government, while
also being able to inform other citizens of current issues. In terms of political science, public opinion is
defined as being the aggregate of public attitudes or beliefs about government or politics. [2] Public
opinion is considered to be the factor that guides an indirect democratic government. It is only
through the approval of the public that a government gains the authority to function. Public opinion is
thought to develop from these main sources: political socialization, education, life experience,
political parties, the media, and the government. [2] Public opinion is considered a dynamic part of
todays government. Continually changing, it has the power and influence to shape the government in
new ways.
Concepts
The German sociologist Ferdinand Tnnies, by using the conceptional tools of his theory
of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, argued (1922, "Kritik der ffentlichen Meinung"), that 'public
opinion' has the equivalent social function in societies (Gesellschaften) which religion has in
communities (Gemeinschaften).[7]
German social theorist Jrgen Habermas contributed the idea of "Public sphere" to the discussion of
public opinion. The Public Sphere, or bourgeois public, is according to Habermas, where "something
approaching public opinion can be formed" (2004, p. 351). Habermas claimed that the Public Sphere
featured universal access, rational debate, and disregard for rank. However, he believes that these
three features for how public opinion are best formed are no longer in place in western liberal
democratic countries. Public opinion, in western democracy, is highly susceptible to elite
manipulation.
The American sociologist Herbert Blumer has proposed an altogether different conception of the
"public." According to Blumer, public opinion is discussed as a form of collective behavior (another
specialized term) which is made up of those who are discussing a given public issue at any one time.
Given this definition, there are many publics; each of them comes into being when an issue arises
and ceases to exist when the issue is resolved. Blumer claims that people participate in public in
different capacities and to different degrees. So, public opinion polling cannot measure the public. An
educated individual's participation is more important than that of a drunk. The "mass," in which people
independently make decisions about, for example, which brand of toothpaste to buy, is a form of
collective behavior different from the public.
Public opinion plays an important role in the political sphere. Cutting across all aspects of relationship
between government and public opinion are studies of voting behavior. These have registered the
distribution of opinions on a wide variety of issues, have explored the impact of special interest

1.
2.
3.
4.

groups on election outcomes and have contributed to our knowledge about the effects of government
propaganda and policy.
Contemporary, quantitative approaches to the study of public opinion may be divided into 4
categories:
quantitative measurement of opinion distributions;
investigation of the internal relationships among the individual opinions that make up public
opinion on an issue;
description or analysis of the public role of public opinion;
study both of the communication media that disseminate the ideas on which opinions are
based and of the uses that propagandists and other manipulators make of these media.
The rapid spread of public opinion measurement around the world is reflection of the number of uses
to which it can be put. Public opinion can be accurately obtained through survey sampling. Both
private firms and governments use surveys to inform public policies and public relations.
Formation (MAKERS)
Numerous theories and substantial evidence exists to explain the formation and dynamics of
individuals' opinions. Much of this research draws on psychological research on attitudes.
In communications studies and political science, mass media are often seen as influential forces on
public opinion. Additionally, political socialization and behavioral genetics sometimes explain public
opinion.
Mass media effects on public opinion[edit]
The formation of public opinion starts with agenda setting by major media outlets throughout the
world. This agenda setting dictates what is newsworthy and how and when it will be reported. The
media agenda is set by a variety of different environmental and newswork factors that determines
which stories will be newsworthy.
Another key component in the formation of public opinion is framing. Framing is when a story or piece
of news is portrayed in a particular way and is meant to sway the consumers attitude one way or the
other. Most political issues are heavily framed in order to persuade voters to vote for a particular
candidate. For example, if Candidate X once voted on a bill that raised income taxes on the middle
class, a framing headline would read "Candidate X Doesn't Care About the Middle Class". This puts
Candidate X in a negative frame to the news reader.
Social desirability is another key component to the formation of public opinion. Social desirability is
the idea that people in general will form their opinions based on what they believe is the prevalent
opinion of the social group they identify with. Based on media agenda setting and media framing,
most often a particular opinion gets repeated throughout various news mediums and social
networking sites, until it creates a false vision where the perceived truth can actually be very far away
from the actual truth.
Public opinion can be influenced by public relations and the political media. Additionally, mass
media utilizes a wide variety of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the minds
of people. Since the 1950s, television has been the main medium for molding public opinion.[8]

Role of Influentials on Public Opinion[edit]

There have been a variety of academic studies investigating whether or not public opinion is
influenced by "influentials," or persons that have a significant effect on influencing opinion of the
general public regarding any relevant issues. Many early studies (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955;
Lazarsfeld et al., 1968) have modeled the transfer of information from mass media sources to the
general public as a "two-step" process. In this process, information from mass media and other farreaching sources of information influences influentials, and influentials then influence the general
public as opposed to the mass media directly influencing the public.
While the "two-step" process regarding public opinion influence has motivated further research on the
role of influential persons, a more recent study by Watts and Dodds (2007) suggests that while
influentials play some role in influencing public opinion, "non-influential" persons that make up the
general public are also just as likely (if not more likely) to influence opinion provided that the general
public is composed of persons that are easily influenced. This is referred to in their work as the
"Influential Hypothesis." The authors discuss such results by using a model to quantify the number of
people influenced by both the general public and influentials. The model can be easily customized to
represent a variety of ways that influencers interact with each other as well as the general public. In
their study, such a model diverges from the prior paradigm of the "two-step" process. The Watts and
Dodds (2007) model introduces a model of influence emphasizing lateral channels of influence
between the influencers and general public categories. This thus leads to a more complex flow of
influence amongst the three parties involved in influencing public opinion (i.e., media, influencers and
general public).
Relationship between opinion and public policy[edit]
The most pervasive issue dividing theories of the opinion-policy relation bears a striking resemblance
to the problem of monism-pluralism in the history of philosophy. The controversy deals with the
question of whether the structure of socio-political action should be viewed as a more or less
centralized process of acts and decisions by a class of key leaders, representing integrated
hierarchies of influence in society or whether it is more accurately envisaged as several sets of
relatively autonomous opinion and influence groups, interacting with representative decision makers
in an official structure of differentiated governmental authority. The former assumption interprets
individual, group and official action as part of a single system and reduces politics and governmental
policies to a derivative of three basic analytical terms: society, culture and personality. Public opinion
enables the organisation to expand internally and externally through public introspection. How does
the latter assumption interpret individual, group and official action? [clarification needed]

Role of Influentials on Public Opinion[

There have been a variety of academic studies investigating whether or not public opinion is
influenced by "influentials," or persons that have a significant effect on influencing opinion of the

general public regarding any relevant issues. Many early studies (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955;
Lazarsfeld et al., 1968) have modeled the transfer of information from mass media sources to the
general public as a "two-step" process. In this process, information from mass media and other farreaching sources of information influences influentials, and influentials then influence the general
public as opposed to the mass media directly influencing the public.
While the "two-step" process regarding public opinion influence has motivated further research on the
role of influential persons, a more recent study by Watts and Dodds (2007) suggests that while
influentials play some role in influencing public opinion, "non-influential" persons that make up the
general public are also just as likely (if not more likely) to influence opinion provided that the general
public is composed of persons that are easily influenced. This is referred to in their work as the
"Influential Hypothesis." The authors discuss such results by using a model to quantify the number of
people influenced by both the general public and influentials. The model can be easily customized to
represent a variety of ways that influencers interact with each other as well as the general public. In
their study, such a model diverges from the prior paradigm of the "two-step" process. The Watts and
Dodds (2007) model introduces a model of influence emphasizing lateral channels of influence
between the influencers and general public categories. This thus leads to a more complex flow of
influence amongst the three parties involved in influencing public opinion (i.e., media, influencers and
general public).
Relationship between opinion and public policy
The most pervasive issue dividing theories of the opinion-policy relation bears a striking resemblance
to the problem of monism-pluralism in the history of philosophy. The controversy deals with the
question of whether the structure of socio-political action should be viewed as a more or less
centralized process of acts and decisions by a class of key leaders, representing integrated
hierarchies of influence in society or whether it is more accurately envisaged as several sets of
relatively autonomous opinion and influence groups, interacting with representative decision makers
in an official structure of differentiated governmental authority. The former assumption interprets
individual, group and official action as part of a single system and reduces politics and governmental
policies to a derivative of three basic analytical terms: society, culture and personality. Public opinion
enables the organisation to expand internally and externally through public introspection. How does
the latter assumption interpret individual, group and official action? [clarification needed]
Non political leaders
Opinion leadership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Opinion leadership is leadership by an active media user who interprets the meaning of media
messages or content for lower-end media users. Typically the opinion leader is held in high esteem
by those who accept his or her opinions. Opinion leadership comes from the theory of two-step flow
of communicationpropounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz[1] Significant developers of the theory
have been Robert K. Merton, C. Wright Mills and Bernard Berelson.[2] This theory is one of several
models that try to explain the diffusion of innovations, ideas, or commercial products.
Merton[3] distinguishes two types of opinion leadership: monomorphic and polymorphic. Typically,
opinion leadership is viewed as a monomorphic, domain-specific measure of individual differences,
that is, a person that is an opinion leader in one field may be a follower in another field. [4][5] An
example of a monomorphic opinion leader in the field of computer technology, might be a
neighborhood computer service technician. The technician has access to far more information on this
topic than the average consumer and has the requisite background to understand the information,
though the same person might be a follower at another field (for example sports) and ask others for
advice. In contrast, polymorphic opinion leaders are able to influence others in a broad range of

domains. Variants of polymorphic opinion leadership include market mavenism, [6] personality
strength [7] and generalized opinion leadership.[8] So far, there is little consensus as to the degree
these concept operationalize the same or simply related constructs. [9]
In his article "The Two Step Flow of Communication" by Elihu Katz,[10] he found opinion leaders to
have more influence on people's opinions, actions, and behaviors than the media. Opinion leaders
are seen to have more influence than the media for a number of reasons. Opinion leaders are seen
as trustworthy and non-purposive. People do not feel they are being tricked into thinking a certain
way about something from someone they know. However, the media can be seen as forcing a
concept on the public and therefore less influential. While the media can act as a reinforcing agent,
opinion leaders have a more changing or determining role in an individuals opinion or action.
In his article, Elihu Katz [1] answers the question, "Who is an opinion leader?" One or more of these
factors make noteworthy opinion leaders:
1.
expression of values
2.
professional competence
3.
nature of their social network.
Opinion leaders are individuals who obtain more media coverage than others and are especially
educated on a certain issue. They seek the acceptance of others and are especially motivated to
enhance their social status.[11] In the jargon of public relations, they are called thought leaders.
In a strategic attempt to engage the public in environmental issues and his nonprofit, The Climate
Project, Al Gore used the concept of opinion leaders. Gore found opinion leaders by recruiting
individuals who were educated on environmental issues and saw themselves as influential in their
community and amongst their friends and family. From there, he trained the opinion leaders on the
information he wanted them to spread and enabled them to influence their communities. By using
opinion leaders, Gore was able to educate and influence many Americans to take notice of climate
change and change their actions.[12]
Impact on Political behavior
Policy Issue:
Citizens learn about politics and government primarily from television and newspapers. These media
outlets can influence voters not only through the slant of a particular report, but also merely by
choosing which to stories to cover. Recent studies suggest that media exposure can have a sizable
impact in shaping the publics political knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. However, these studies
may have overestimated the impacts of media influence due to individuals tendency to seek out
information that agrees with their pre-existing views.
Context of the Evaluation:
Prince William County in northeastern Virginia lies just 25 miles from Washington D.C. Here, the
population is far enough away from the nations capitol so as not to be dominated by citizens involved
professionally with politics, but close enough to be within the circulation of Washingtons conservative
and liberal newspapers. The Washington D.C. metro area is served by two major newspapers, the
conservative Washington Times and the more liberal Washington Post. The presence of a liberal and
conservative paper serving the same region creates an opportunity to study the effect of media slant
in a natural setting within a single population, which is subject to the same outside factors, such as
political events and outcomes, and has a range of political leanings.
Details of the Intervention:
This study takes advantage of this natural setting to measure the effect of political news content on
peoples political behavior and opinions. Approximately one month prior to the Virginia gubernatorial

election in November 2005, researchers administered a short survey to a random selection of

households in Prince William County.
From the 3,347 households of registered voters who reported that they received neither the Post nor
the Times, researchers randomly assigned households to receive a free subscription to one of the two
papers for ten weeks, or to the comparison group that was not sent either paper. A week after the
election, a follow-up survey was administered asking individuals whether they voted in the November
2005 election, which candidate they selected or preferred, their attitudes toward news events of the
previous weeks, and their knowledge about recent news events. Voter turnout data was also collected
for the November 2005 and 2006 elections from state administrative records.
Results and Policy Lessons:
Impact on Political Knowledge: Receiving either paper produced no effect on knowledge of political
events or stated opinions about those events, and there were no differences between the treatment
and comparison groups in voter turnout for the 2005 gubernatorial election. In November 2006,
however, there was a 2.8 percentage point increase in voter turnout. It is surprising to see a result in
2006 but not in 2005. This could be a result of the post-election exposure to the remainder of the tenweek newspaper subscriptions, or the fact that 17 percent of the treatment group renewed their
subscription after the free period ended.
Impact on Political Preference: Interestingly, receiving either newspaper led to an increase of support
for the Democratic candidate. Despite the political slant of the newspapers, the effects were similar for
the Post and the Times, resulting in an overall 7.2 percentage point increase in likelihood of voting for
the Democratic candidate. This may be due to the fact that the Republican Presidents approval
ratings were falling over that period of time, or perhaps the Democratic candidate was conservative
leaning. In either case, these results suggest that the informational effect of more exposure to news
was stronger than the effect of its slant.