Public Opinion Squared

bbc-radio-4When you see something created in front of your eyes, you have to think about what it is that you’ve just seen. Such was the case the other week when I was helping a BBC radio journalist on attitudes to disability benefits, where – as if by magic – she produced ‘public opinion’ for their programme. We travelled over to a town in Kent, went into the bar of a local community club, where she corralled four of the people who happened to be hanging around into an impromptu focus group. It was this motley collection of people who were kind enough to take part that was then broadcast to the nation (in a piece that I actually thought was very considered and thought-provoking).

But does it matter how we create this thing called ‘public opinion’? Or put another way, does public opinion about public opinion matter – should we care about what people think about what other people think?

Public and private opinion

One possibility is that our impressions of public opinion really do matter, because our sensitivity to social influence changes what we ourselves think (or are prepared to say). But equally, the views of distant others may be completely irrelevant to our own views of how the world should be.

This has been tested in a lovely experimental study that my Kent colleague Trude Sundberg passed on to me, by Sonck & Loosveldt 2010 using an online panel survey in the Flemish part of Belgium. S&L asked for their opinions on a series of deliberately-selected issues – the independence of Flanders, the adequacy of retirement income, whether immigrants from poor countries should be allowed to live in the country, whether living standards were going down, and about solidarity between healthy and sick people in the healthcare system. Crucially, a random subset of the sample were given actual information on the public attitudes of their fellow-citizens.  For example, on the Flanders independence issue:

  • Some people were given the following information: ‘An opinion poll commissioned by VRT and De Standaard revealed in November that 12% of the Flemish people favour the independence of Flanders’’
  • Everyone ranked on a five-point agree-disagree scale whether ‘Flanders should be independent’
  • And everyone answered, ‘In your opinion, what percentage of Flemish people favors the independence of Flanders (0-100 percent)?’

The results are intriguing. For the Flanders question, people on average thought that about 45% of people in Flanders favoured independence – far more than the figure of 12% revealed in the survey. Among the group who saw the poll information, they reduced their estimate of other people’s opinion by about 4.5 percentage points (so they on average thought about 41% of other people favoured independence). And amazingly there was still a measurable difference in attitudes three months later when people were asked again (still at about 2 percentage points).

Yet when it comes to people’s own opinions on independence, hearing about the poll made no difference whatsoever, even at the time that people heard the information. This is the same across all these different areas – S&L consistently found that hearing about polls changes perceived public opinion in both the short-term and medium-term, but had no impact at all on people’s private views.

This isn’t a nail in the coffin for the idea that perceived public opinion affects private opinion – this is only a single study, and a meta-analysis ) of this kind of study suggests that we are more likely to find an effect on new issues that people haven’t yet formed an opinion of. And sometimes effects are more complex than the simple form that can be tested in this kind of experiment. But it seems reasonable to assume that these effects aren’t that big.

Policymaking elites and public opinion

But if perceived public opinion doesn’t matter much, then why is it such a battleground?  Why are the newspapers full of polls that they have commissioned that show that most people agree with the political slant of that paper?  For example, in the recent debate about whether benefits should be increased at less than the level of inflation, right-wing people cited polls showing this was popular, left-wing people cited polls showing that the public were split (see my chapter in this).

Partly it might be because people enjoy feeling in the majority, even if this doesn’t change their actual views. (Given the intense slant of all British newspapers – many to the right, but some slanted to the left – you might think that the main job of British newspapers is to pander to their readers’ views and make them feel morally superior. Clearly their role isn’t to create a more truthful public debate – see this, this & this…).

But my feeling is that the main impact of public opinion is in policymakers’ perceptions about what will win them votes, and that THIS is what all of these polls are speaking to (rather than a direct effect on their readers). This is perhaps not such a surprise given all the discussions of focus group politics et al, but this is a necessary piece of ground-cleaning for considering how public perceptions of deservingness, fairness and inequality matter for actual outcomes – which I would argue that they do.

About Ben Baumberg

I am currently a Lecturer in Sociology and Social Policy at the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research (SSPSSR) at the University of Kent. I also helped set up the collaborative research blog Inequalities, where I regularly write articles and short blog posts. I have a wide range of (too many...) research interests, at the moment focusing on disability, the workplace, inequality, deservingness and the future of the benefits system, and the relationship between evidence and policy. You can find out more about me at http://www.benbaumberg.com
This entry was posted in Blog posts and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Public Opinion Squared

  1. I really enjoyed your essay. The question about why public opinion is or is not a battleground for any policy issue has a lot to do with a few important conditions. One key condition is whether the issue is in fact salient. Or in other words, whether people really care about something. Just because someone is asked about some issue, it does not necessarily mean that they think it is especially important (this may be the case as well with newer issues or very specific issues that individuals simply did not have a chance to formulate an opinion about). In that case, should elites care about public opinion, or are they free to pursue a policy course along the lines of their, or their party’s, ideological preferences? I would imagine a similar situation exists when it comes to how people’s own opinions or preferences are shaped by knowing what other people’s opinions are. If an individual really cares about something, it may not matter at all to know about others because they are determined to hold that belief (or they believe that likeminded others will have the same opinion as them anyway). If an individual really doesn’t care about something, then they may not care enough to want to really know about others’ preferences. But when people are seeking validation, or information about how their opinions compare to the public (or a segment of the public), or when they are somewhere in the middle in terms of their enthusiasm about something, that might be where others’ preferences do matter in shaping an individual’s opinion. Again, this may be the case on new issues or issues where there are few players – such as interest groups, social movement organizations, and political entrepreneurs – seeking to frame issues to convince individuals one way or the other. I argued in a blog post back in 2011 that people didn’t really think much about inequality (while they did think about poverty) until the Occupy Movement politicized inequality such that it found a place on the public and policy agenda. It would be interesting to track how people’s understandings and attitudes about inequality have been shaped by the increasing political salience of it, and, how they think about what others think about inequality in formulating preferences. Anyway, great essay! I look forward to reading more.

    • Ben Baumberg says:

      Hi David – thanks for your lengthy response, and sorry for my slow reply. I really like the idea of the effects of public opinion (on both the public and elites) being issue-specific – and even varying over time and place within specific issues. So for example, where social mores are changing (for example, over homosexuality), I think people’s perception of what is acceptable are really important. (I always thought that this image was interesting in that regard!). But on longstanding, politicised issues that wax and wane, public opinion is probably less important for our own opinions.

      I’m not sure that the Occupy Movement made public opinion on public opinion on inequality that important – but rather was successful in raising the profile of the issue continually, and framing the issue really powerfully. Your 2011 post sounds interesting anyway – can you send on a link to it?

      Looking forward to continued debates about this too!
      BB
      b/w, Ben

  2. I have a hunch (but no empirical evidence) that public opinion that knowing that public opinion is *trending* in one direction may give a person more license to express a view that was previously taboo or unpopular. I would venture that this might be the story of how generational shifts in attitudes about social issues like racial intermarriage and gay rights take place — a person may come to entertain a certain view but may be unwilling to commit to that view until they are reassured that other people that are like them also share that view.

    • Ben Baumberg says:

      Yes, I agree (as usual🙂 ) – see my response to David above. There’s also an interesting project on generational attitudes to benefits and inequality that Demos and Ipsos MORI are doing in the UK – more on this later in the year when the report is launched.

  3. It is also important to include a discussion of the the role we see politicians as having. Are politicians delegates or as trustees? In other words, should they as delegates react to public opinion or are they trustees who have a certain competence voters do not have and thus should not react in the same way to public opinion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s