IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v61y2017i8p1795-1815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surprising Events and Surprising Opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Paolino

Abstract

The academic debate concerning public opinion about war focuses upon two explanations: cost/benefits and partisan cues. Both sides of this debate use laboratory experiments to estimate the influence of events and cues, but Gelpi is notable for using a well-designed experiment to compare the theories simultaneously. He argues that his results support the cost/benefits explanation as “surprising events†that counter individuals’ prior attitudes have significantly more effect than “surprising opinions†upon people’s attitudes toward the Iraq War. His analysis, however, considers only the direction, but not the strength, of people’s attitudes toward the war. Additionally, the measure of source credibility for determining the influence of cues is not optimal. When the analysis accounts for attitude strength and uses a better measure of source credibility, the results show little support for the effect of surprising events and markedly greater support for the influence of partisan cues.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Paolino, 2017. "Surprising Events and Surprising Opinions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(8), pages 1795-1815, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:61:y:2017:i:8:p:1795-1815
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002715616167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715616167
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002715616167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521584487, January.
    2. Baum, Matthew A. & Groeling, Tim, 2010. "Reality Asserts Itself: Public Opinion on Iraq and the Elasticity of Reality," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(3), pages 443-479, July.
    3. Gartner, Scott Sigmund, 2008. "The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 95-106, February.
    4. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    5. Aldrich, John H. & Sullivan, John L. & Borgida, Eugene, 1989. "Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 123-141, March.
    6. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521585934, January.
    7. David A. M. Peterson, 2004. "Certainty or Accessibility: Attitude Strength in Candidate Evaluations," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 513-520, July.
    8. Krosnick, Jon A. & Kinder, Donald R., 1990. "Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 497-512, June.
    9. Mueller, John E., 1971. "Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and Vietnam 1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 358-375, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher Gelpi, 2010. "Performing on Cue? The Formation of Public Opinion Toward War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(1), pages 88-116, February.
    2. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    3. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    4. Ferreira, Simão & Campos, Carlos & Marinho, Beatriz & Rocha, Susana & Fonseca-Pedrero, Eduardo & Barbosa Rocha, Nuno, 2022. "What drives beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories? The role of psychotic-like experiences and confinement-related factors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    5. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    6. Brendan Nyhan, 2011. "The limited effects of testimony on political persuasion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 283-312, September.
    7. Scott Feld & Samuel Merrill & Bernard Grofman, 2014. "Modeling the effects of changing issue salience in two-party competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 465-482, March.
    8. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    9. Aaron McCright, 2011. "Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 243-253, January.
    10. Thompson, Paul N., 2019. "Are school officials held accountable for fiscal stress? Evidence from school district financial intervention systems," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 44-54.
    11. Gary Goertz & Tony Hak & Jan Dul, 2013. "Ceilings and Floors," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-40, February.
    12. David Altman, 2002. "Prospects for E-Government in Latin America: Satisfaction With Democracy, Social Accountability, and Direct Democracy," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 5-20, December.
    13. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    14. Donald Wittman, 2008. "Targeted political advertising and strategic behavior by uninformed voters," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
    15. Michal Tóth & Roman Chytilek, 2018. "Fast, frugal and correct? An experimental study on the influence of time scarcity and quantity of information on the voter decision making process," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 67-86, October.
    16. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    17. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    18. Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? -- Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 31-59, April.
    19. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "The Role of Direct Democracy and Federalism in Local Power," IEW - Working Papers 209, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    20. Bernard GROFMAN & Joseph GODFREY, 2014. "Aspiration Models of Committee Decision Making," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2014-04-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:61:y:2017:i:8:p:1795-1815. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.