Public Opinion (POL 322)
Professor Tali Mendelberg, preceptors Baxter Oliphant and Bryn Rosenfeld
Fall 2012
Office Hours: by appointment
Contact: talim@princeton.edu
This course considers a central question of democracy – can the people govern? Do
ordinary citizens have the capacity and motivation to hold officials accountable?
Influential research suggests that they do not. People do not know even basic facts about
the American political system, they often seem to make up opinions on the fly, they lack
coherent political ideologies, and they seem easily manipulated by the media and election
campaigns. But other research suggests that despite these shortcomings, public opinion is
good enough – it is coherent and sensible most of the time, and it does significantly shape
what government does. Both the critics and the supporters of public opinion recognize
that opportunity matters for the public’s capacity and motivation to govern. The
opportunity to govern consists of conditions that help citizens to become informed, to
reason well, to participate meaningfully in the political system, and to influence its
decisions and processes. The forces that shape the opportunity to learn, to reason, to
participate, and to influence include: the media, political campaigns, and inequalities in
society (such as class, race and gender). We will consider both the negative and positive
assessments of the public’s capacities, and the role of the opportunity to govern.
Requirements
Grades are based on the following:
1. Election 2012 Project (conducting and writing up the results of an exit poll on
Election Day 2012 and comparing the results to those of other polls reported
in the media; 8-10 pages, DUE Friday 12/14): 25%
2. take-home final exam (covers entire course, including lectures, readings and
precepts; DUE Friday 1/18): 40%
3. participating in precept discussion: 35%
Project: This project is designed to give you hands-on experience doing public opinion
research, and the opportunity to talk with actual voters who have just cast their vote in a
high-stakes election. The project requires you to spend approximately half a day
interviewing voters on Election Day (Tuesday November 6). The results will be
provided to you in the form of percentages, and simple tables and/or graphics. You will
not need to run any specialized software. You do not need to know statistics.
Transportation is provided and you will be given detailed instructions on what to do,
where, and when. You will write a paper reporting the results from this exit poll,
comparing those results to results you find in media reports of other surveys about the
election, and interpret the election itself in light of these results and in light of other
readings and materials covered in the course. If you cannot do this project, you can opt
instead to take a take-home midterm exam. However, I advise you to opt for the project.
Exam (take-home): The exam consists of essays that draw on the readings, studies
covered in lectures, and discussions in precept, and require regular attendance in precept
1
and lecture to do well. You will have a choice among essay questions. No make-up
exams will be given and late exams will be penalized one full grade for each 24 hours
(e.g., an “A” exam will get a “B”).
Participation: You are also required to post a minimum of one paragraph as a comment
on the week’s assigned readings on the Blackboard discussion board during eight weeks
of your choice. Please bring a copy of your posting with you to your precept. Your
posting must have a time-stamp from the day before your precept. These posts are not
instead of speaking – they are meant to help you figure out what you want to say. Tell the
group what you said in your post – do not assume it has been read. Also, you are required
to lead precept discussion once during the term, which requires a concise statement of the
main themes and issues of the required readings (not to exceed five minutes). A good
participation grade requires that you make several thoughtful comments that are clearly
informed by the readings, in every precept.
Readings
Starred readings are available at the Labyrinth bookstore and on reserve at the library:
Non-starred readings are on e-reserve.
Iyengar and Kinder, News that Matters (2010)
Mutz, Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Vs. Participatory Democracy (2006)
Page and Shapiro, The Rational Public (1992)
Asher, Polling and the Public, 8th ed (2012)
(Note that Fiorina’s book Retrospective Voting is out of print but has been scanned
by the library and is available on e-reserve; there are also some copies on reserve.)
Schedule
NOTE: The first lecture will be held on Wednesday 9/19
Week 1 - Introduction: What Is Public Opinion and What Should We Expect of it?
(9/17) [NO CLASS ON 9/17]
Clawson, R. and Z. Oxley. Public Opinion: Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice, 2nd
ed. (2013), Appendix: “Studying Public Opinion Empirically” (pp. 27-40).
2
Week 2 - The Case Against Public Competence (9/24) [NO CLASS ON 9/26]
Converse, P. “Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.”
Bartels, L. “Democracy with Attitude,” In Mackuen and Rabinowitz” (ed.) (2003),
Electoral Democracy
Week 3 – The Case for Competence: Heuristics, Cues and Values (10/1)
Popkin, S. The Reasoning Voter, 2nd ed. (1994), Prologue (p. 1-6) and Ch. 4 (p. 72-81,
91-95)
Lupia, A. 1994. "Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in
California Insurance Reform Elections." APSR, 88: 63-76.
Asher, H. 2012. Polling and the Public, 8th ed. Chapters 3, 4, and pp 238-241.
Week 4. Sociological Perspectives: Inter-personal discussion, social forces, and class
cleavages (10/8)
***Mutz, D. Hearing the Other Side, entire book
Bartels, L. Unequal Democracy – Ch. 1
Week 5. Psychological Perspectives (10/15)
Green, D. P., B. Palmquist, and E. Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and
Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identity of Voters. New Haven: Yale
University Press, pp. 1-51
Asher, H. 2012. Polling and the Public, 8th ed. Chapters 5, 6.
Week 6. Economic Perspectives (10/22)
Fiorina, M. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven:
Yale University Press. Chapters 1, 10.
3
[FALL BREAK]
Week 7. Media Institutions: Does the Media Tell Us What to Think? Does More
Media Choice Produce Better Democracy? (11/5)
***Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. News that Matters – Chs. 1, 3-5, 7, 11.
‘Athens’ on the Net - NYTimes.com (available from Blackboard)
Week 8. Opinion and Participation: Why Do Some Participate More than Others?
(11/12)
Delli-Carpini, M.X. 2000. Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information
Environment. Political Communication. 17: 341–349.
Verba, S. et al. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus. Selections TBD.
Week 9. Turnout: Are Americans Apathetic? What Makes them Less or More So?
(11/19)
de Rooij, E.A., Green, D.P. and A.S. Gerber. 2009. “Field Experiments on Political
Behavior and Collective Action.” ARPS 12: 389-395.
Green, D.P., Gerber, A.S. and Larimer, C.W. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout:
Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” APSR 102 (1).
Ansolabehere, S. et al. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize The Electorate?”
APSR 88(4): 829-838.
Geer, John. 2006. In Defense of Negativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 119 and 42-63 (chapters 1 and 3).
Week 10 Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Sociological Group Cleavages and
Psychological Mechanisms (first of two weeks) (11/26)
Burns, N. et al. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press – Ch. 13
Dawson, Behind the Mule, Princeton University Press (1994) – Chs. 1 and 3
4
Barreto, M. 2007. “Si Se Puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino
Voters.” American Political Science Review 101 (August).
Week 11. Group Cleavages, continued (second of two weeks) (12/3)
Sears, D.O. et al., Racialized Politics – Ch. 1
Kinder, D. and Sanders, L., Divided by Color – Ch. 5
Week 12. Does the American Political System Represent the Will of the People? Are
Some People More Represented than Others? Aggregated Public Opinion and
Political Representation (12/10)
***Page, B. and Shapiro, R., The Rational Public – Chs. 1, 2, 8, 9
Bartels, L. Unequal Democracy – Chs. 1 (review) and 9
5