Social Theory and Public Opinion PDF

Social Theory and Public Opinion
Author(s): Andrew J. Perrin and Katherine McFarland

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 37 (2011), pp. 87-90, C1, 91-107
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41288600
Accessed: 05-02-2019 03:30 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Sociology
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 03:30:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Social Theory and
Public Opinion
Andrew J. Perrin and Katherine McFarland
Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
27599-3210; email: andrew_perrin@unc.edu, kmcfarla@email.unc.edu
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011. 37:87-107

Keywords
First published online as a Review in Advance on
polling, cognitive aspects, deliberation, survey research
April 15, 2011
Abstract
The Aimual Review of Sociology is online at
soc4uinualreviews.org
Any study of public opinion must consider the ontological status of the
This article's doi:
public being represented. In this review, we outline several empirical
10.1 146/annurev.soc.Ol 2809. 102659
problems in current public opinion research and illustrate them with a
Copyright (§) 201 1 by Annual Reviews. contemporary case: public opinion about same-sex marriage. We then
All rights reserved
briefly trace historical attempts to grapple with the public in public opin-
0360-0572/1 1/081 1-0087S20.00 ion and then present the most thoroughgoing critiques and defenses of
polling. We detail four approaches to the ontology and epistemology
of public opinion. We argue for a conceptualization of public opinion
that relies upon polling techniques alongside other investigative modes
but that understands public opinion as dynamic, reactive, and collective.
Publics are shaped by techniques that represent them, including public
opinion research.
87
INTRODUCTION their cohesion depends on technical practices
such as the salons and coffee shops in Habermas
Public opinion research is charged with ade-
Public: as an
(1989 [1962]), representative claims (Saward
quately representing the views of a public. Any
2006), print capitalism (Anderson 1992), elec-
adjective, a literal or study of public opinion must therefore con-
figurative sphere of toral rituals (Allen 2004), media representations
sider the ontological status of the public being
social life separate (Warner 1992, 2002), and standardized repre-
represented. Public opinion research, while
both from the family sentative surveys. We prefer the term "public-
(private) and often taking into account associations with de-
ness" to "public sphere" to highlight that being
governmental (state) mographic and behavioral metrics, focuses pri-
spheres; as a noun, a public is a feature of social phenomena, not a
marily on contestable mental representations:
collectivity of phenomenon in itself.
opinions. Public opinion research also takes as
individuals sharing A vibrant public sphere, in which citizens
its object specifically public attitudes. Public
such a sphere may exchange information and ideas about pub-
here has two related senses: as an adjective,
Ontology: questions lic matters, is often assumed to exist underneath
it describes opinions that relate to matters of
of the underlying public opinion as the laboratory in which in-
object being studied:
common interest. As a noun, it describes a col-
dividual opinions are developed. The opinion
the actually existing lective that shares such mental representations
character of categories survey is one technique that promises to rep-
and, therefore, is more than just the collected
or processes in the real resent transparently the authentic contours of
populace of a given region. We understand
world, prior to their the public (Panagia 2006, Perrin & McFarland
measurement or
public opinion research to be practices aimed
2008). However, representation is a compli-
description at ascertaining shared mental representations
cated concept that may be understood in mul-
about matters of public concern.
Epistemology: tiple ways, including scientific, aesthetic, polit-
questions arising from The very concept of a public involves ex-
ical, and descriptive representation.
a theory of knowledge: changing ideas and views that are neither pri-
how do research Since the proliferation of the technique in
vate nor directly related to the state. A key
practices reveal truths the early to mid-twentieth century, "the opin-
historical development of the public was to
or fail to do so? ion poll has steadily attained hegemonic status
remove practices of secrecy from old-regime
as the tool for measuring the 'will of the peo-
European government: "It was precisely be-
ple' in modern democratic polities" (Sturgis &
cause public opinion promised to transcend
self-interest . . . that it was hailed as the moral Smith 2010, p. 66). In common current usage,
a public opinion survey understands the pub-
arbiter for the entire society and polity" (La
lic as a transparent snapshot of the distribution
Volpa 1991, p. 52). Both historically and in cur-
of authentic opinions among all members of
rent practice, the relationship between public-
the population. This conceptualization builds
ness1 and public opinion has been a matter of
upon early advances in statistics that allow for
debate. Publics are collective and independent
probabilistic estimation of a quantity of interest
of both private interests and governmental con-
about a population based on specific sampling
cerns. They are not immediately observable;
techniques that allow a random sample to stand
in for a population. In this review, we consider
*By publicness we refer loosely to the German term the ontology and epistemology of public opin-
Ojfentlichkeit. Perhaps most literally translated as openness, ion and of publics.
Ojfentlichkeit has been translated as publicness, publicity,
A public is a collectivity, not just a collection,
openness, public opinion, public sphere, and even democ-
a difference that reaches back to Rousseau's
racy! Jurgen Habermas introduced the term to contemporary
American readers in The Structural Transformation of the Pub- distinction between the volonte de tous (the
lic Sphere (Habermas 1989 [1962]), in which Offentlichkeit is
will of the people) and the volonte generate
rendered as public sphere. The common use of public sphere
to represent Ojfentlichkeit at once implies a spatial element (the general will) (Rousseau 1913, p. 203).
not present in Ojfentlichkeit and, at the same time, reduces The representational ideal of survey research
Ojfentlichkeit to a particular portion of social praxis instead
is essentially scientific: it implicitly seeks
of the overarching modality implied in the German term
(Nowotny 2003; see also Perrin and Olick's introduction to transparency. However, for public opinion re-
Pollock et al. 201 1). search in particular, this ideal faces two special
88 Perrin • McFarland
challenges beyond those facing survey research We then briefly trace historical attempts to
in general. The first is the problem of represent- grapple with the public in public opinion
ing a public (a collectivity) through a collection and then present the most thoroughgoing
of atomized individuals - substituting statis- critiques and defenses of polling. Next we
tical representation for public representation. turn to current public opinion research and
The second is the problem of ascertaining the detail four approaches to the ontology and
genuine opinions of those individuals in the epistemology of public opinion. We argue
context of a range of interactional, social, for a conceptualization of public opinion that
and technical cues. Thus, to the standard relies upon polling techniques alongside other
concerns with errors of coverage and errors of investigative modes but understands public
measurement (Dillman 2007, p. 11), we argue opinion as dynamic, reactive, and collective.
for adding a concern with errors of context. Publics are evoked, even shaped, by techniques
Our concern here is with the validity of pub- that represent them, including public opinion
lic opinion research as representing the true, research. Modern public opinion research
preexisting views of the public - what we term emerged as enterprising scholars applied new
ontological validity. Other approaches to valid- techniques of survey research to a nascent the-
ity include predictive validity, which is based ory of a democratic public. These techniques,
upon surveys' ability to predict the outcome of in turn, shaped the development of the theory
elections, and policy responsiveness. Even crit- of that democratic public. Hence, the object of
ics of public opinion polling acknowledge that study developed in tandem with the methods
polling often successfully predicts electoral out- used to study it. Rather than considering this
comes, but they argue that the success is based dynamic a fatal flaw, we argue that it is an
on a shared artificiality (Blumer 1948). opportunity for understanding the origins and
Likewise, most considerations find fairly dynamics of modern publics and for improving
high levels of policy responsiveness, meaning our approach to public opinion research.
that public policies often reflect public opin-
ion as represented by polls (Brooks & Manza
CURRENT EMPIRICAL
2006, Burstein 2003, Erikson et al. 2002; but
PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC
see Burstein 2006 for a caution). Manza &
OPINION RESEARCH
Cook (2002) argue that responsiveness should
be defined as responsiveness to public opin- Several patterns highlight concerns about the
ion as measured, thereby rendering the cri- practice of survey-based public opinion re-
tiques semantically, if not ontologically, irrele- search. These include patterns of nonresponse,
vant. Responsiveness, like predictivity, is in part question-order effects, question- wording ef-
a product of researchers and publics partici- fects, proxy responses, and priming and framing
pating in the same fiction. Policy makers and effects.
pollsters alike understand public opinion to be

that which is measured by standardized public
opinion polls; hence, policy responds to polls Nonresponse
but not necessarily to authentic underlying col- Refusing to answer or answering "don't know"
lective opinion. These ideas tend to mask the are thorns in the side of pollsters. Standardized
work that has been done to imagine the public as public opinion research is based on the premise
an aggregated whole, measurable through com- that members of the public have opinions on a
bining the isolated views of a random sample. broad range of topics; those who do not give
We begin by outlining several empirical opinions are treated as residue or missing data
problems in current public opinion research (Bogart 1967, Schuman & Presser 1980). But
and illustrate them with a contemporary case: nonresponse may be the result of nearly any
public opinion about same-sex marriage. underlying attitude or of a lack of any attitude
www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 89
at all. It may also indicate that those who do responses may also reflect respondents' more
respond are not quite as informed and engaged general political opinions. Bishop et al. (1980)
as pollsters assume. argued that respondents likely inferred that
Researchers have found many reasons for the fictitious Public Affairs Act had some-
"don't know" responses. First, respondents may thing vaguely to do with government and thus
not know or care enough about an issue to of- based their responses on their feelings toward
fer an opinion. Giving a "don't know" response government.
correlates with less knowledge, interest, and ex- There are several cases of patterned re-
posure to information (Atkeson & Rapoport sponses to fictional questions and response
2003, Faulkenberry & Mason 1978, Rapoport patterns that make sense only by interpreting
1982). When researchers first ask respondents the responses broadly. For example, a 1991
if they know about an issue, roughly one-fifth experiment included "Wisian Americans" on
admit to ignorance or disinterest (Bishop et al. a list of ethnic groups for respondents to rate
1983, 1986; Schuman & Presser 1996). Second, favorably or unfavorably; 39% of respondents
some may give a "don't know" response when offered a rating (New York Times 1992). More
they do not understand a question or their opin- recently, during the summer of 2010 between
ion is not represented in the answer choices 18% and 24% of respondents said that they
(Converse 1976, Harmon 2001). Finally, believed President Barack Obama is Muslim,
Berinsky (1999, 2004) argues that some give a a rate nearly double that of the previous two
"don't know" response when their true opin- years. Thus, a substantial number of Americans
ions are socially undesirable. apparently learned a "fact" that was untrue and
Respondents' willingness to answer "don't that had been consistently reported to be false
know" or "no opinion" also varies cross- in the media. Further analysis of these polls
nationally (Sicinski 1970), which implies differ- strongly suggests that they reflect respondents'
ences in the collective understanding of what it self-identification as members of a public that
means to opine (Jepperson 1992; see also Perrin dislikes the president, not that actually believes
and Olick's introduction to Pollock et al. 2011) him to be a believing or practicing Muslim.
or, potentially, implies differences in subjects' In both of these cases, the observed pattern of
"competence" (Bourdieu 1991). These non- responses is either entirely implausible or very
responses indicate indeterminacy; interpret- unlikely to reflect underlying public opinion.
ing public opinion out of them is far from
straightforward.
Question Order
Numerous studies have uncovered significant
Proxy Responses differences in respondents' answer patterns
In related studies, researchers found that be- based on the order in which questions are
tween 25% and 40% of respondents give opin- asked. One important example is in attitudes
ions on bills that the researchers either made toward affirmative action. Whites asked first
up or that are so obscure that the respondents about affirmative action for racial minorities
would have no knowledge of them (Bishop express more racial animus toward African
et al. 1980, 1983, 1986; Schuman & Presser Americans than those for whom the affirmative
1980, 1996). These pseudo-opinions are likely action question comes later (Sniderman &
proffered because the poll implies that respon- Piazza 1993), and men support affirmative
dents should have opinions; thus, many are un- action for women less strongly (Wilson et al.
willing to admit ignorance or apathy (Bishop 2008). One explanation is that people feel
et al. 1986; see Althaus 2003 and Bishop 2005 compelled to report consistent opinions. How-
for extended discussions of the implications ever, in broader tests of question-order effects,
of poorly informed respondents). Fictional Schuman & Presser (1996) found mixed
go Perrin • McFarland
Figure 1
Trends in polling on same-sex marriage, 1985-2008. Source: Pollster.com. Figure used with permission.
www.annualrevieuos.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion C-l
support for this "consistency hypothesis." neutral word for an issue, and thus the results
Another explanation is that questions ap- of such polls are far from transparent.
pearing first set the evaluation criteria for
subsequent items. Experiments byTourangeau
and colleagues (Tourangeau & Rasinski Priming and Framing
1988, Tourangeau et al. 1989) showed that Priming and emphasis framing refer to ef-
respondents' attitudes toward abortion were fects that direct respondents toward particu-
influenced by whether the question followed lar interpretations of questions. Studies have
items about religion or women's rights. demonstrated that media exposure (Althaus &
Similarly, analysis by B artels (2002) showed Kim 2006, Scheufele 2000) and even late-night
that faith in elections appeared to drop after television (Moy et al. 2006) help respondents
1980, when a new question order put that item understand what questions might be about.
after questions about government waste and Because respondents "think with" these con-
corrupt politicians. Overall, we can understand structs (Perrin 2006, pp. 64-65), their answers
question-order effects to be evidence showing are properly understood as the result of an un-
the extreme difficulty of achieving uniform observed interaction between their authentic
meaning for any given public opinion item. views and the information environment from
which the answers emerged.

Of late, this perspective has moved toward
Question Wording analysis of opinion formation and framing ef-
There are two broad types of question-wording fects. Chong & Druckman (2007) provide re-
effects: comprehension and equivalence fram- cent examples of this mini-paradigm at work.
ing. Small wording changes can affect com- They argue that the establishment of a frame
prehension by altering what respondents think can have a causal effect on those members of
of when they interpret and respond to ques- the public who have not yet formed an opinion
tions. For instance, asking about partisanship of their own. Hout & Fischer (2002) show this
"today" encourages respondents to draw on with seemingly simple questions such as reli-
current feelings about political parties and thus gious preferences. With emphasis framing, re-
fluctuates over time, whereas asking "generally" spondents are given a broader context for the
solicits a longer range view that is more sta- question item, and their responses may have
ble (Abramson & Ostrom 1994, Borrelli et al. more to do with their opinions on that broad
1987). context than on the specific question.
Equivalence framing deals with what to call
the object of study - calling water-boarding
"torture" or "enhanced interrogation," for Case in Point: Interpreting Public
example - whereas emphasis framing deals with Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage
what the object is about - whether water- Each of these issues reflects a substantive prob-
boarding is about national security or about lem with public opinion polling as a transpar-
ethical treatment of prisoners (Druckman 2001, ent representation of the underlying views of
Druckman & Holmes 2004). In a recent exam- the public. To illustrate these concerns, we
ple of equivalence framing, a CBS News /New use the case of attitudes toward same-sex mar-
York Times (2010) poll showed a 17-point dif- riage. Polls have asked about same-sex marriage
ference between strong support for "gay men since 1985, using many different wordings.
and lesbians" serving in the military (51%) and Figure 1 (see color insert) illustrates the trend
for "homosexuals" serving (34%). Smith (1987) in responses to these questions.
showed that across myriad surveys the term The typical interpretation of the chart in
"welfare" invoked stronger negative opinions Figure 1 is that the American public's sup-
than the term "poor." In most cases, there is no port for allowing same-sex marriage has steadily
increased while opposition has steadily de- (2010) found a significant, robust difference be-
creased. For this interpretation to hold, respon- tween support for a law allowing "gays and
dents would need to (a) share a common def- lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex"
inition of gay marriage or same-sex marriage (36.6%) and "two men to marry each other
with the researcher and other respondents; or two women to marry each other" (33.6%).
( b ) understand that the question was about a po- Wording for same-sex marriage items varies
litical, rather than a personal, issue; (c) know the widely,3 and how much this variation affects
current status of same-sex marriage (not easy reported results is unknown. Finally, same-sex
to do, as it varies by state and changes often); marriage is usually framed as a social issue and
(d) care about this legal status; and ( e ) have paired most often with abortion. It is not framed
thought about and formed an opinion on same- as a civil rights issue, as many supporters pre-
sex marriage. Moreover, to uncover a trend of fer, or as a morality issue, as opponents pre-
opinion on same-sex marriage over 3 3 years, as fer. Although the emphasis framing of same-sex
depicted in Figure 1, these factors need to be marriage as a social issue may not push people
consistent over time. This is indeed a high bar. toward support or opposition, it does impose
First, since 1985 roughly 8% of respondents a reference point aligned with common under-
have indicated they "don't know" whether they standings of party positions.
support or oppose legalized same-sex marriage, The political debate over same-sex marriage
and that figure has remained stable through is heavily informed by poll results. Both sides
3 3 years of polling. This suggests that there has cite new polls that they claim show that roughly
been no increase in salience of same-sex mar- half of Americans support legalizing same-sex
riage over this time period - clearly unlikely.
marriage while the other half oppose it. As we
Gays and lesbians are vastly more visible now
have outlined, though, this reading is far from
than in 1985, both as a group with political in-
transparent.
terests and as individuals known personally by
Americans. In identical poll questions, 47% of
A SHORT HISTORY OF PUBLIC
respondents said in 1992 that they personally
OPINION RESEARCH
knew someone who was gay or lesbian com-
pared with 77% in 2010 (CBS News 2010). The story of the development of public opin-
Since 1996, citizens in 30 states have voted on
ion research during the course of the twenti-
referenda to ban same-sex marriage, and there eth century is the story of the coevolution of
have been numerous high-profile court deci-
techniques for ascertaining individual opinions
sions. If, as seems likely, same-sex marriage has
and a burgeoning faith in scientific approaches
become more salient in the last 33 years, we
to improve upon previous impressionistic and
would expect fewer "don't knows" and more in-
elite-oriented methods of social research (Tilly
formed, interested, and considered support or
1983). The Progressive Era of the early twen-
opposition.2 tieth century applied this faith to the realm
Second, different wording of questions on of governance, and the post-Depression anxi-
same-sex marriage can result in important dif- ety over urbanization and the loss of individ-
ferences in outcome. Conlon & McFarland
uality combined with this sensibility to make
standard, objective techniques for picturing the
2 It is possible that the meaning of "don't know" has changed

Respondents
over this time period. However, even if "don't know" is some- have been asked if they support or op-
pose "same-sex marriage" (Quinnipiac 2008), "allowing gays
times a way for respondents to register an opinion between
and
the poles (Brody 1 986), we would expect a change in the lesbians to legally marry" (Pew Res. Cent. People
rate
Press/Princeton
of this answer over this period. It is very unlikely that the same Surv. Res. Assoc. 2001), and if "marriages
between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by
proportion of respondents would have had a fully considered
opinion in 1985 as in 2008. the law as valid" (Saad 2005).
<? 2 Perrin • McFarland
public in its entirety very attractive (Allen 2004, that question. Instead, the journal has car
Igo 2007, Schudson 1998). mostly the results of polling studies
The theory of public opinion was largely technical advances in polling practices s
driven by the techniques developed at that as computer-assisted interviewing, split-ba
time. The application of innovations in prob- designs, and interactive voice response poll
ability theory allowed researchers for the first
time to accurately predict the political behav-
ior of a population of millions based on a rel- CRITICISM AND DEFENSES
atively small, well-drawn sample. Translating OF POLLING
this innovation to public opinion polling meant The most thoroughgoing critiques are those of
that the individual opinions of respondents Herbert Blumer and Pierre Bourdieu, who es-
were aggregated and called public opinion - a sentially argue that public opinion polling is
bottom-up approach driven by technical pos- insufficiently sociological. Polling ignores the
sibility rather than theoretical rigor. Indeed, social character and the power relationships of
early in the history of the flagship journal Pub- society. These power dynamics mean that some
lic Opinion Quarterly , Childs (1939, pp. 329-30) people's opinions matter more than others by
promoted an aggregative approach to public having more ability to influence officials ac-
opinion against those who understood public cording to their opinion (Blumer 1948). Thus,
opinion as a holistic property of a collectivity: polling obscures social inequality by assuming
that everyone has an equally valued opinion
Public opinion always refers to a collection about every subject (Bourdieu 1979).4 Polls, in
of individual opinions, not to some mysti- Blumer's view, serve to legitimate public pol-
cal entity that is floating about in the atmo- icy by creating the idea of a single public voice:
sphere over our heads the idea that there is, in fact, a public opinion,
we mean, therefore, simply any
evencollection ofBourdieu (1979) goes one step
if it is split.
individual opinions designated.
further, arguing that public opinion polls actu-
ally create public opinion more than discover-
Converse (1987) argues that the
ing what is combi-
already out there.
nation of changes in technological capacity,
Public opinion polling necessitates stan-
industrialization, and urbanization provided
dardizing questions and presuming that there
fertile ground for the emergence of modern
are standardized political problems. As the
survey research. However, the practice
Frankfurt devel-
School sociologists argued:
oped in response to the needs of institutional
elites - primarily the mediaThat
(Igo 2007),
everyone gov- his own opinion is a
possesses
ernment, and military (Converse
cliche of 1987). The
the Modern. In earlier social epochs,
large-scale, representative social surveycosmos
the spiritual quickly
was, on the one hand,
became the staple of postwar social
much science.
too strongly constructed and strictly
Since its entry into mainstream research
controlled andto be able to have or
for everyone
popular imagination in the mid-twentieth cen-
to have been able to develop a private opinion
tury, public opinion research about
haseverything
enjoyed great
advances methodologically in the modes
information and of
communications possibilities
data collection as well as in the use and analysis
of those data. However, there has been little
sustained engagement with4We theoretical
are reminded issues.
of Lady Catherine's admonishment o
Indeed, whereas early issuesElizabeth
of Public Opinion
in Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice-. "Upon my word
you give your opinion very decidedly for so young a person"
Quarterly contain numerous items on the
(Austen 1813, chapter 29). Thank you to an anonymous re
theoretical nature of the object ofpointing
viewer for study, outby
that there are often limits in societ
the early 1940s, articles rarely approached
to who has opinions.
www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opin
were too limited for the overwhelming major- resulting from question wording or other
ity of people to have been in the situation to bias.
have an opinion about everything imaginable. In general, the scorched-earth critiques miss
(Pollock et al. 20 1 1 , chapter 1 ; see also Adorno the point of public opinion research, while the
2005; Alsina et al. 2 00 1 ; Ginsberg 1986,1989). democratic defenses are overly rosy about its
capacities (Schuman 2008, p. 21). The critics
In a similar vein, critical political scientists tend to indict public opinion research not for
have called public opinion a "fetish" (Bennett its internal practices, but for not being a dif-
1993, p. 109; Edelman 1993) and a "fiction" ferent kind of research. They also rarely con-
(Ginsberg 1986, Herbst 1998), albeit a "use- tain empirical analysis of their own (although
ful" one (Entman & Herbst 2001). These cri- Herbst 1998 and Pollock et al. 2011 are two
tiques are both ontological and epistemological. important exceptions). Then again, J. Manza &
First, what polls represent as public opinion is C. Brooks (unpublished manuscript), for exam-
a construction (Duncan 1984, Cicourel 1964), ple, offer an insightful review of public opin-
and second, the way polls measure public opinion research for sociological consideration but
ion does not transparently represent the way elide the ontological problems by resorting to
people actually think. predictive validity. A fruitful line of research
Defenders of standardized public opinion would consider the ontological and epistemo-
research emphasize its homology with elections logical implications of current concerns and cri-
and, therefore, its democratic character (e.g., tiques of public opinion research and provide
Newport 2004). Asher (2004, p. 189) sums directions for integrating critical, theoretical,
up the democratic defense as follows: "Public and experimental approaches.
opinion polling is a contemporary manifesta-
tion of classical democratic theory; it attests to
the ability of the rational and wise citizen to THEORETICAL APPROACHES
make informed judgments on the major issues TO PUBLIC OPINION
of the day." Sanders (1999) provides a thorough Confronted with the need to consider the on-
defense of this position, arguing that the demo- tological status of public opinion, researchers
cratic merits of public opinion polling outweigh adopt a number of strategies. These include
the representational costs; she argues for the
1. ignoring the concern and proceeding
use of experimental and comparative designs to
with a standardized approach;
address the critiques - a position we consider
2 . developing new techniques to ascertain or
below in our discussion of developing new tech-
control for distortions;
niques. Some scholars have responded by argu-
3 . approaching public opinion as a deliber-
ing that polls are the true voice of the people,
ative process; and
the most democratic way for the public to speak
to its leaders. Other forms of communication - 4. adopting a performative stance, recogniz-
directly writing or calling one's elected leaders,

ing public opinion research as represent-
appearing in the mass media, or staging political

ing and constructing publics.
demonstrations - suffer from selection bias so Each of these approaches entails ontolog-
that only some members of the public are able ical and epistemological claims: claims about
and willing to make their voices heard. This the nature and observability of public opinion.
was the great promise of polling championed There is substantial variation within each cat-
by Gallup (1940) and other early founders. egory. But each represents a particular combi-
Certainly in the news media public opinion nation of theory and method for conceptualiz-
polls are treated as the true, unadulterated voice ing public opinion. Below, we outline the con-
of the people. They are routinely reported on tours of each approach and pursue an argument
as pure fact with minimal mention of problems that the last is the most promising marriage of
theoretical and empirical advances for public Similarly, in their recent work on attitud
opinion research. toward class and economic inequality, the ve
subtitle of which promises "what America
really think," Page & Jacobs (2009, p.
Ignoring Concerns and Using use a wealth of polling data to claim th
the Standard Approach "Americans of all economic classes and both
Perhaps the most ubiquitous approach to political parties largely agree with one another"
public opinion research is to report results as on matters of economic inequality. However,
the true, unfiltered, and uncomplicated voice "Americans" is used interchangeably with
of the American public. This public is just the "most Americans," "ordinary Americans," and
population of all residents within a geographic "the public." Americans, the study demon-
area. Americans are presented as coherent, strates, are "philosophically conservative and
thoughtful, and easily grouped according to operationally liberal" and "pragmatic" (Page
their opinions. Consider a widely read blog- & Jacobs 2009, p. 3). Persily (2008, p. 5)
ger's comment: "I LOVE those CNN and CBS introduces his team's volume on public opinion
insta-polls. Rather than sit and spin bullshit on constitutional matters by offering "what
all night, the pundits actually have to adjust 'the people themselves' actually think about
to what the public actually thought the issues the Supreme Court has considered."
Thefor
the American people can speak uncritical use of poll data extends to
themselves,
academic work.
and the pundits have to react In their otherwise outstand-
accordingly.
ing review
Much, much better" (Zuniga 2008).of political
The pollspolarization and social
referenced ask a fixed set of questions
fragmentation to States,
in the United a Fischer &
specific sample of Americans;
Mattsonthe
(2009)"American
treat public opinion data equiv-
alently to as
people" have spoken only insofar demographic, income, and residential
that people
data. These frame
are conceptualized as the sampling other types of data are much less
from
problematic ontologically because they rely on
which the poll sample was derived!
measurements thatthat
It is not only in popular treatments are more
theconcrete and less
aggregated responses of a subjective.

polling sample
Whereas are they review
in one section
residential and
mistaken for the public. Academic income dataof-
research to evaluate polar-
ten either implicitly or explicitly assigns
ization by class, a they
in another de-use public opin-
ion on social
gree of authenticity to poll data thatissues to evaluate
seems un- cultural polar-
warranted in the face of the ization. Not all data
critiques. In are createdof
Tides equal, and there
Consent , for example, Stimson is an traces
ontologicalthe
problem with treating public
history
of the standoff between President Bill Clinton opinion data as one would treat other types of
and the newly elected Republican Congress in data. In another example, Larsen (2008) uses
1994, and concludes: World Values Survey data to test his theoreti-
cal model connecting a public's attitudes about
The issue is not the "polls," a term by which welfare to its institutional welfare regime -
we disparage public opinion. The polls are those countries with more liberal welfare
measuring devices. It is not the numbers; it regimes will have citizens that are more favor-
is what they mean. It is the real movements by able to giving public assistance to those in need.
the national electorate that the polls measure These articles are representative of the use of
that move politics poll data by many sociologists. The data are
much more than most realize taken at face value as true representations of col-
lective
ways to the future, telling those opinion
whose and used to explore other theo-
careers
retical
and strategies depend on public points. Our
support thatclaim is not that these uses
are the
success depends on being with naive,tide,
but that
notthey require an ontological
status of public opinion that is not established.
against it. (Stimson 2004, pp. xv-xvi)
Ontologically, studies in this category survey interview as a specific, structured inter-
understand public opinion to be the unprob- action between interviewer and interviewee.
lematic aggregation of the reported private Responses therefore reflect aspects of the
opinions of properly sampled individuals. interviewer, the interviewee, the question,
Opinion is assumed to be formed and carried other questions on the survey, and the en-
by individuals, from where it is reported to vironment and mode in which the question
survey interviewers upon request. Epistemo- is asked, alongside the respondent's genuine
logically, these studies assume that answers views. To isolate these views, research in this
given reflect the authentic attitudes of the vein addresses technical issues of sampling, re-
respondents, or alternatively that instability in sponse rates, interviewing method [e.g., phone
respondents' answers will average out in the versus Internet; computer-assisted telephone
aggregate (Zaller 1992). As Page & Shapiro interviewing (CATI) versus interactive voice
(1992, p. xi) put it, the American public "holds response (IVR)], question wording and ques-
a number of real, stable, and sensible opinions tion order, and more. These approaches seek
about public policy." The representation is a "science of asking questions" (Schaeffer &
unidirectional: Polls represent but do not Presser 2003), generally through experimental
influence the content of public opinion. means by systematically varying the conditions
under which questions are asked (Sniderman
& Grob 1996). This is currently the dominant
Technical and Methodological Fixes strain of innovation in public opinion research.
The second strategy is to propose methodolog- Another strain of innovation starts with the
ical fixes to the standard technique to isolate premise that a portion of the public does not
sources of distortion of authentic attitudes. The have opinions on public matters and seeks
assumption of this strategy is that respondents to manage their influence through front-end
have relatively stable, underlying guidelines changes to questionnaires or back-end fixes in
upon which they rely to generate opinions or analysis. Following his research on using fil-
preferences about matters when they come ters and pseudo-opinions, Bishop (2005) urges
up (Allport 1935; Oskamp & Schultz 2005, researchers to expand standard questionnaires
pp. 8-9). Indeed, some scholars hold that to include measures of respondents' general
attitude stability is vital to democratic practice political and issue-specific knowledge, opin-
because unstable attitudes imply an inability to ion strength, and reasons for opinions. On the
be sincere or genuine in offering preferences, analysis side, Althaus (2003) uses respondents'
a central value in much democratic theory scores on general political knowledge questions
(Bartels 2003; Jacobs et al. 2009, pp. 13-15; but to model what public opinion would look like
for a trenchant critique see Markovits 2008). if everyone were well informed.
These stable attitudes are then assumed to These technical approaches share an onto-
be lost or distorted in the interview process,
logical view with the first category above: Public
opinion remains viewed as the aggregate of
and the goal of research in this area is to find
correctives to reveal true opinions. private opinions held by members of a popula-
The field of cognitive aspects of survey
tion. The difference is epistemological - where
traditional public opinion research implicitly
methodology (CASM) has emerged in recog-
treats the questionnaire as a transparent
nition of empirical problems such as these
(Schwarz 2007, Tourangeau et al. 2000). conveyor of opinions, technical approaches
CASM scholars use public opinion data and
understand the questionnaire and the standard-
survey design strategies to document and
ized survey interview as containing important
distortions of underlying public opinion.
correct for response patterns that result from
Careful, innovative modes of data collection
causes other than respondents' genuine views.
Researchers conceptualize the standardized
and analysis seek to measure and control for
p6 Perrin • McFarland
these distortions in order to approximate Town Meeting - an intensive form of deliber-
transparency. ative decision making - as "real democracy."
Technical approaches to ascertaining the Miller (1992) notes that democratic deci-
contours of underlying public sentiment sion making requires a process of aggregation
have grown increasingly sophisticated. The whereby citizens' preferences are combined
key recognition that informs this family of into a collective decision. Any such process is
approaches is that latent opinions may be best subject to Arrow's paradox: that "in general
ascertained using active probes. In contrast there is no [single] fair and rational way of
to what Wilson & Hodges (1992) call a "file amalgamating voters' preferences to reach
drawer" model, in which opinions are present a social decision" (Miller 1992, p. 58). This
in individuals waiting to be harvested, these paradox gives rise to a family of problems called
approaches build upon Zaller's (1992, p. 52) social choice theory. One solution is deliber-
treatment of public opinion responses as a ative democracy, which "has the resources to
function of political awareness and political attenuate the social choice problems faced by
predispositions. Wanke (1997, p. 267) sums up the political community" (p. 60). Deliberative
the goal of this family of studies: "After years of approaches emphasize communications among
research on the understanding of the dynamics citizens to bring in social processes of justifica-
underlying question-answer processes that are tion, reasons, and inclusion (Schneiderhan &
responsible for context effects, practitioners Khan 2008).
expect an answer to how to eliminate context There are two basic strains of the delib-
effects." erative approach to public opinion research.
We argue that increasing methodolog- The first strain promotes ways to implement
ical sophistication by refining standardized formal deliberation before taking a relatively
techniques - although quite productive in ad- traditional measure of the opinions of those
vancing the epistemology of survey research - who have deliberated. Deliberative polling
cannot adequately address an essentially onto- (Ackerman & Fishkin 2004, Fishkin 1991,
logical problem. Standardized techniques have McCombs & Reynolds 1999) is described as "a
no mechanism to treat the public as a collectiv- weighing of competing considerations through
ity instead of just a collection. Treating the pub- discussion" that should be informed, balanced,
lic as individuals opens a Pandora's box of mea- conscientious, substantive, and comprehensive
surement error in which researchers try to fit (Fishkin & Luskin 2005, p. 285), thus differ-
the vague, varying, and idiosyncratic attitudes entiating deliberation from everyday conversa-
of respondents into cleanly defined and specific tion. For Fishkin (1991, p. 1), a deliberative poll
questions in a controlled environment. "models what the public would think, if it had a
more adequate chance to think about the ques-
tions at issue" (emphasis in original). Thus, a
Deliberation in Public Opinion standard poll is taken after a deliberative ses-
One way of introducing publicness back into sion; deliberation does not substitute for polling
public opinion research is to encourage delib- but improves the opinions expressed.
eration, either prior to gathering survey data or Fishkin argues that deliberation is in fact a
as an alternative mode of data collection. In the public good (as does Mutz 2006); Ackerman &
broadest sense, deliberation refers to any prac- Fishkin (2004) argue for a national holiday to
tice of back-and-forth communication among allow citizens to deliberate, and Leib (2004) ar-
citizens on matters of public importance. Vary- gues for a similar system of randomly selected
ing theory about deliberation offers advice as deliberative groups. However, Fishkin recog-
to the form and content of the practice (e.g., nizes that the methodology is tricky. Fishkin
Benhabib 1992, Ferree et al. 2002). Bryan & Luskin (2005, p. 288) propose that partici-
(2004) goes so far as to label the New England pants be randomly assigned to small groups led
by trained moderators who will "maintain an studies that use arranged groups to understand
atmosphere of civility and mutual respect, en- the collective character of opinions, such as
courage the diffident, restrain the loquacious," Gamson's (1992) Talking Politics , Sasson's
as well as make certain that each issue of interest (1995) Crime Talk , and Perrin's (2006) Citizen
is heard fully, both arguments for and against, Speak. Walsh's (2004) Talking About Politics
and that they plan for the period of deliberation combines direct observation techniques with
to last an entire weekend. careful attention to deliberation, demonstrat-
Elsewhere, McLean et al. (2000) argue ing the ways in which politics is foregrounded
that deliberative polling can create "preference and avoided in a scene of everyday talk; as
structuration" where there was none before; in such, it combines the best features of arranged
other words, deliberative polling may help cre- group-style studies and observational research.
ate the very stable opinions it seeks to ascer- One little-known study deserves particular
tain. For reasons we outline below, this is not mention here. In 1949-1950, fresh after return-
necessarily a problem, but constitutes an im- ing to Germany from exile in the United States,
portant ontological difference from traditional the Frankfurt School scholars - principally
public opinion studies. Studies of the outcomes Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and
of formal deliberative efforts show they may be Friedrich Pollock - embarked on an ambitious
successful in correcting for the skewed picture empirical study of postwar German public
presented by traditional public opinion because opinion (Olick 2007). The U.S. High Com-
participants become more interested and in- missioner for Germany, which served as the
formed and are more likely to feel increased occupying administration in West Germany
efficacy and community identity after the event (Jager 2004, Wiggershaus 1994), was engaged
(Delli Carpini & Keeter 1997, Gastil 2000), in a series of public opinion surveys in the
although these effects may be short-lived and new Federal Republic designed to demonstrate
dependent on individual factors (Merkle 1996, the successful exorcism of the Nazi ghost and
Moy & Gastil 2006, Ryfe 2005). the consequent readiness of West Germany
However, this form of deliberation suffers to take its place in the community of nations
from the likelihood that a moderator's enforce- (Merritt 1995; Merritt & Merritt 1970, 1980;
ment of decorum will change the content of Stern 1992). For reasons both biographical and
statements. More importantly, due to the dy- theoretical, Adorno, Horkheimer, and their
namics of small groups and particular partici- colleagues were skeptical of the results these
pants within them, much of the outcome rides surveys produced. They doubted the "clean
on which participants end up placed in which break" with the Nazi past that the American
groups. research seemed to imply (Olick 2007; for more
This first strain sees deliberation as the site on the project, see Olick and Perrin's introduc-
where public opinion is formulated and refined; tions to Adorno 2010 and to Pollock etal.2011).
it is a necessary part of the process that results in In the 1950s, the Frankfurt scholars thus
public opinion. The second strain views public designed and carried out Group Experiment
opinion as expressive action itself - the content (published in English translation in Adorno
of deliberation is the opinion to be measured. 2010, Pollock et al. 2011) to articulate and
This includes analysis of documents and dis- demonstrate their critiques. These critiques
course, such as Wagner-Pacifici's (1994) anal- foreshadowed debates that took place later - in
ysis of documentary evidence surrounding the some cases, much later - on the nature of
1985 MOVE bombing, Perrin's analysis of let- public opinion, deliberation, representation,
ters to the editor (Perrin 2005, Perrin & Vaisey and democratic citizenship and that we recap
2008), and McFarland's analysis of media in this review. In addition to anticipating the
debates surrounding state same-sex marriage contours of these debates, Group Experiment's
initiatives (McFarland 2011). It also includes approach applied modern techniques of
9$ Perrin • McFarland
empirical research to the task, in the form of resulting from which citizens' views are likely to
136 focus groups designed to probe the dark be enshrined in documents and under what con-
recesses of the post-Nazi German imagination. ditions. Small-group studies, similarly, may in-
Although they employed the language of troduce bias based on which individuals are se-
contemporary public opinion research, they lected for the study at all, which specific groups
sought to address the concern that such re- are formed, and which particular conversa-
search was, like the consumer society it served, tional dynamics emerge in that group (Gibson
atomistic, superficial, and passive. 2003, Schudson 1997). Lezaun (2007) specif-
Group Experiment theorized a deliberative ically criticizes widely used focus group tech-
approach to public opinion (though they did niques, arguing that the claim that these tech-
not use the word deliberative) as a way to un- niques gain privileged access to participants'
cover opinion that would not otherwise be artic- genuine opinions is inappropriate. Although
ulated in the "totally socialized society" whose citizens talk about politics frequently enough
contours they sought to discern. The groups in everyday life, their conversations are infor-
they brought together were loosely designed mal, often among like-minded acquaintances,
after the focused interview method detailed in and skewed toward those with higher educa-
Merton et al. (1956). They sought to reveal tion and socioeconomic status (Conover et al.
opinions in statu nascendi (in their nascent state) 2002, Keeter et al. 2002, Sunstein 2009).
because they understood nonpublic opinion as
being essentially social - formed, constrained,
and enabled by micro- and macroenvironments A Performative Approach
and therefore available for analysis only un- One of the most important observations un-
der favorable social conditions. The project re- derlying critiques of public opinion research
vealed that Nazi statements were relatively easy is that public opinion is reactive. Citizens and
to evoke; far from being banished, the Nazi publics not only speak through polls and other
ghost lurked just below the surface. The new public opinion research but also consume that
method was able to discern its latent presence. same research. In consuming the research, they
Beyond its substantive innovation, one other learn what expectations fall to citizens of a mod-
key point about Group Experiment is worthy of ern public. "In short, across a range of differ-
note. One of the assistants on the study was ent measures of opinion quality, the empirical
Jiirgen Habermas, whose ideas on publicness record consistently supported the view that, in
Adorno specifically credited in a later lecture surveying public opinion, we do not simply re-
(Adorno 2005) and who went on to be the pre- veal a pre-existing public mood but, to some
mier theorist of deliberative democracy. extent, we serve to create it as well" (Sturgis &
Ontologically, much is appealing about Smith 2010, p. 67).
deliberative approaches. Implicitly or explic- Ginsberg (1986, 1989) also highlights reac-
itly, they locate public opinion as a char- tivity, comparing the cost of opining in an en-
acteristic of collectivities, whether "mediated vironment of public opinion polling with that
public spheres" (McFarland 2011, Perrin & of doing so in an environment without such
Vaisey 2008) that comprise large geographic polling. In order to opine absent the appara-
or interest-based groups or smaller, naturally tus of routine public opinion polling, a citizen
occurring or assembled groups. Thus, one of must decide that an issue is worth developing an
the two main challenges of public opinion opinion about, use one or more decision pro-
research, the challenge of measuring a col- cesses to develop that opinion, and choose to
lectivity instead of a collection, is addressed. articulate it in some way, whether in person or
The epistemological and methodological prob- in writing. Opining is active and difficult. By
lems, though, remain thorny. Studies utilizing contrast, opining in the context of a polling-
documentary evidence are vulnerable to bias savvy public is passive and easy. The poll-taker
decides what is important to have an opinion how responding to a given question reflects a
about and offers the opportunity to articulate respondent's position in a complicated, multi-
that opinion. This transformation in the prac- dimensional web of symbolism and group iden-
tice of opining, Ginsberg argues, leads to a sig- tification (e.g., Conlon & McFarland 2010).
nificant shift in what it means to be a citizen. One among the list of subjectivities respondents
Ginsberg's critique makes it clear that he thus draw upon is the abstract identity of poll-
considers this shift in meaning to be for respondent, an identity that did not exist, and
the worse - the active, expressive citizen being therefore a mode of behavior that was unavail-
preferable to the choice-making citizen (Paley able, before the widespread adoption of polling
2001, p. 135). Similarly, Peer's (1992)Foucault- techniques for representing public opinion.
based critique of public opinion polling charges
the technique with "manipulating" and even Because of the identification of public
"manufacturing" public opinion (see also opinion with the measurements of surveys,
Beniger 1992). While we agree that Foucault's the illusion is easily conveyed of a public
governmentality concept (Foucault 2000) is which is "opinionated" - which is committed
crucial, our reading is more generous to polling. to strongly held views. The publication of
The concepts of manufactured and manipu- opinion poll results undoubtedly acts as a
lated public opinion imply that there is some- reinforcing agent in support of the public's
thing foundational that is being manipulated. consciousness of its own collective opinions
Instead, we argue that polling methods, like as a definable, describable force. These
other technologies, have constituted publics in published poll data may become reference
particular ways, evoking some modes of citizen- points by which the individual formulates and
ship behavior (such as answering a survey) while expresses his opinions. (Bogart 1967, p. 335)
discouraging others (such as mass demonstra-
tions; see Tilly 1983, Osborne & Rose 1999). As an example of interpreting polling
To reconcile the enormous advances in, and performatively, we return to the case of same-
predictive validity of, polling techniques with sex marriage. The standard approach would
the equally trenchant and convincing critiques interpret the results of 33 years of polling as
of those techniques, we adopt a performative a gradual shift of Americans' true opinions on
theory of polling. We base this approach on same-sex marriage, brought to light through
the idea that technical practices have social out- the standardized technique. Alternatively, we
comes (Latour 2005) and that, in particular, interpret them as a shift in where respondents
theoretical and measurement apparatuses de- tend to place themselves on a predefined spec-
signed to represent a social phenomenon trans-trum of opinion. We cannot know whether
parently often also encourage people to act those who "strongly oppose" laws allowing
in accordance with the theory (Callon 2007, same-sex marriage do so because they have
Callon et al. 2009, MacKenzie 2006). carefully considered these laws, because they
As recent theories such as those of Warner do not like gays and lesbians, or because they
(1992, 2002), Anderson (1992), and Saward identify as social conservatives. We interpret
(2006) suggest, publics are born, and indi- their responses as true but radically context-
viduals made part of them, through repre- dependent. They are indications of their
sentational practices including public opinionidentification with one or another social group
polling. These practices represent and, there-they recognize. Because we assume their re-
fore, instantiate the otherwise abstract notionsponses to be dynamic, reactive, and collective,
of the public. From this idea it follows that it is less useful to seek to isolate their individu-
we should understand the empirically demon-ally authentic opinions than it is to understand
strated problems with conventional survey re- the social cues they are giving off. Understand-
search as substantive observations: evidence for ing these cues may require triangulating with
ioo Perrin • McFarland
other research modalities such as interviews, similar anomalies raise the possibility that re-
media analysis, political discussion networks sponses are produced, not just evoked, by the ar-
(Huckfeldt et al. 2004), and group discussions tificial interaction between interviewer and re-
that offer insight into the sociality of opinion. spondent. Public opinion should be understood
This approach diverges from predictive as collective, not just aggregated; dynamic, not
validity, so scholars focused on forecasting elec- static; and reactive, not unidirectional.
tion outcomes (such as referenda on same-sex Critiques based on these and similar con-
marriage) may well choose to stick with tradi- cerns that indict the entire practice of public
tional polling strategies, but those interested in opinion polling are neither new nor rare
ascertaining the ontological contours of public (Blumer 1948; Bourdieu 1979, 2005; Ginsberg
opinion (such as underlying attitudes toward 1986, 1989). But they are largely ignored by
same-sex marriage) should strongly consider contemporary practitioners because they offer
adopting a performative viewpoint. This little middle ground to allow continued empiri-
approach has several important advantages cal research enlightened by the critics' insights.
as well. It takes seriously the fundamentally In short, if "public opinion does not exist"
collective character of publics as more than the (Bourdieu 1979), what ought a democratically
aggregation of their constituent individuals. It minded researcher do in order to observe and
recognizes the information gathered through represent the ideas and preferences of the peo-
polling as real information, relevant to the ple? In the absence of such a middle ground,
social and political life of the public, without public opinion researchers have generally
making the untenable assumption that this proceeded as if these critiques did not exist,
information is transparent or authoritative or or adjusted technically for what are essentially
its representation unidirectional. ontological concerns. Technical fixes are
insufficient, in our view, because the problem
they address is not essentially technical. Critics
CONCLUSION
are correct in arguing that researchers should
give
Few techniques are more central to up their project of discovering "true"
contempo-
latent
rary social science than the sample public opinion
survey as through sophisticated
a tool for measuring the opinionmethodologies.
of a public. But defenders are also correct
The technique has become so entrenched
in asserting that
the power and importance of survey
its historical, ontological, and epistemological
research for understanding publics' attitudes.
contours are hidden. Historical treatments have
What is needed, we argue, is reworking the
demonstrated that these techniques required theory of the nature of public opinion to allow
not just technical advances but also changes in for a more ontologically sound use of empirical
how analysts and respondents imagined publics.techniques.
As the new techniques became available, it made We propose this middle ground. Rooted in
more sense to analysts to adopt them than to in- deliberative democracy and reactivity, we ar-
terrogate them theoretically. And as the tech- gue for understanding publics as at once cre-
niques took hold, they became truer represen-ated and represented by the tools used to de-
tations of publics as people learned to think with scribe them. Thus, citizens, confronted with
polls and samples as indicators of publicness. the results of polls or the requests of interview-
Ontologically, the idea that publics have ers, imagine themselves as part of a public that
stable preferences and that these can be ascer-is brought into being by the very polls them-
tained through aggregating private, isolatedselves. This insight requires going beyond tech-
opinions is rendered suspect because of well-niques developed in the CASM field to bring in
documented anomalies such as question word-the constructed and social characters of survey
ing, question order, nonresponse, and even fic- response, not just their individually cognitive
tional questions on surveys. Epistemologically, character. It calls for approaches such as those of
wwiv.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 101
Group Experiment (Adorno 2010, Pollock et al. of the results of traditional polls with an eye
2011), which observe the process of opinion toward the work respondents do to craft their
formation, but it also calls for critical appraisal self-image as a member of an imagined public.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We offer great thanks to J. Micah Roos and Shamus Khan for insightful ideas and
various points during the preparation of this review. We also acknowledge the subst
of an anonymous reviewer who provided several important ideas and clarifications.
LITERATURE CITED
Abramson PR, Ostrom CW. 1994. Question wording and partisanship: change and continuity in
during the 1992 election campaign. Public Opin. 0. 58:21-48
Ackerman B, Fishkin JS. 2004. Deliberation Day. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Adorno TW. 2005. Opinion research and publicness. Transl. introd. AJ Perrin, L Jarkko.
2 3 ( 1 ) : 1 1 6-2 3
Adorno TW. 2010. Guilt and Defense: On the Legacies of National Socialism in Postwar German
introd. JK Olick, AJ Perrin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Allen DS. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship Since Brown v. Board of Education. C
Chicago Press
Allport GW. 1935. Attitudes. In A Handbook of Social Psychology , ed. CM Murchison, pp. 798-8
MA: Clark Univ. Press
Alsina C, Davies PJ, Grobeck BE. 2001. Preference poll stories in the last 2 weeks of campaign 2000: uses of
the massed opinions of numbered citizens. Am. Behav. Sci. 44:2288-305
Althaus SL. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Althaus SL, Kim YM. 2006. Priming effects in complex information environments: reassessing the impact of
news discourse on presidential approval. J. Polit. 68:960-76
Anderson B. 1992. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Revised ed.
Asher H. 2004. Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know. Washington, DC: CQ Press
Atkeson JLK, Kapoport KJb. L UU3. I he more things change the more they stay the same: examining gender
differences in political attitude expression, 1952-2000. Public Opin. Q. 67:495-521
Austen J. 1813. Pride & Prejudice. London: T. Egerton, Whitehall
Bartels LM. 2002. Question order and declining faith in elections. Public Opin. Q. 66:67-79
Bartels LM. 2003. Democracy with attitudes. In Electoral Democracy, ed. MB MacKuen, G Rabinowitz, pp. 48-
82. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Benhabib S. 1992. Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition, and Jiirgen Habermas. In
Habermas and the Public Sphere , ed. C Calhoun, pp. 73-98. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Beniger JR. 1992. The impact of polling on public opinion: reconciling Foucault, Habermas, and Bourdieu.
Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 4(3):204- 19
Bennett WL. 1993. Constructing publics and their opinions. Polit. Commun. 10:101-20
Bennsky AJ. 1999. The two races of public opinion. Am. J. Polit. Set. 43:1209-30
Berinsky AJ. 2004. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Bishop GF. 2005. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield
Bishop GF, Oldendick RW, Tuchfarber AJ. 1983. Effects of filter questions in public opinion surveys. Public
Omn. O. 47(4^:528-4 6
Bishop GF, Oldendick RW, Tuchfarber AJ, Bennett SE. 1980. Pseudo-opinions on public affairs. Public Opin.
Q. 44(2): 198-209
Bishop GF, Tuchfarber AJ, Oldendick RW. 1986. Opinions on fictitious issues: the pressure to answer survey
questions. Public Opin. Q. 50(2):240-50
Blumer H. 1948. Public opinion and public opinion polling. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1 3(5):542- 49
Bogart L. 1967. No opinion, don't know, and maybe no answer. Public Opin. Q. 3 1(3):33 1-45
Borrelli SA, Lockerbie B, Niemi RG. 1987. Why the Democrat-Republican partisanship gap varies from poll
to poll. Public Opin. Q. 51:115-19
Bourdieu P. 1979. Public opinion does not exist. In Communication and Class Struggle: Vol. 1. Capitalism and
Imperialism , ed. AMattelart, S Siegelaub, pp. 124-30. New York: Int. Mass Media Res. Cent.
Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Bourdieu P. 2005. The mystery of ministry: from particular wills to the general will. In Pierre Bourdieu and
Democratic Politics, ed. L Wacquant, pp. 55-63. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Brody CJ. 1986. Things are rarely black and white: admitting gray into the converse model of attitude stability.
Am. J. Sociol. 92(3):657-77
Brooks C, Manza J. 2006. Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:474-94
Bryan FM. 2004. Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Burstein P. 2003 . The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit. Res. Q. 56:29-40
Burstein P. 2006. Why estimates of the impact of public opinion on public policy are too high: empirical and
theoretical considerations. Soc. Forces 84:2273-89
Callon M. 2007. What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In Do Economists Make Markets: On
the Performativity of Economics, ed. D MacKenzie, F Muniesa, L Siu, pp. 3 1 1-57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y. 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Transl.
G Burchell. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
CBS News. 2010. Poll: With higher visibility, less disapproval for gays. CBS News Poll, May 20-24.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007144-503544.html
CBS News/New York Times. 2010. Gays in the military. CBS News/New York Times Poll, Feb. 5-10.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_02 1 1 10_2pm.pdf
Childs HL. 1939. By public opinion I mean. Public Opin. Q. 3 (2): 3 2 7-3 6
Chong D, DruckmanJN. 2007. Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10:103-26
Cicourel A. 1964. Method and Measurement in Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press
Conlon I, McFarland K. 2010. Concrete language and sexual prejudice: The effect of question wording on opinion of
same-sex marriage. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., Atlanta, Aug. 13
Conover PJ, Searing DD, Crewe IM. 2002. The deliberative potential of political discussion. Br. J. Polit. Sci.
32:21-62
Converse TM. 1976. Predicting no opinion in the polls. Public Opin. O. 40(4):5 15-30
Converse JM. 1987. Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Delli Carpini MX, Keeter S. 1997. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT:
Yale Univ. Press
Dillman DA. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley. 3rd ed.
DruckmanJN. 2001. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit. Behav. 23:225-56
DruckmanJN, Holmes JW. 2004. Does presidential rhetoric matter? Priming and presidential approval. Pres.
Stud. Q. 34:755-78
Duncan OD. 1984. Notes on Social Measurement. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Edelman M. 1993. Contestable categories and public opinion. Polit. Commun. 10(3):2 3 1-42
Entman R, Herbst S. 2001 . Reframing public opinion as we have known it. In Mediated Politics : Communication
in the Future of Democracy, ed. WL Bennett, R Entman, pp. 203-25. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Erikson R, MacKeun M, Stimson J. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Faulkenberry GD, Mason R. 1978. Characteristics of nonopinion and no opinion response groups. Public
Opin. Q. 42:533-43
Ferree MM, Gamson WA, Gerhards J, Rucht D. 2002. Four models of the public sphere in modern democ-
racies. Theory Soc. 31:289-324
Fischer CS, Mattson G. 2009. Is America fragmenting? Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:435-55
.bishkin JS. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. JNew Haven, CI : Yale
Univ. Press
Fishkin JS, Luskin RC. 2005. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion.
Acta Polit. 40(3):2 84-98
Foucault M. 2000. The subject and power. In Power, ed. JD Faubion, pp. 326-48. New York: New Press
Gallup GH. 1940. The Pulse of Democracy: The Public Opinion Poll and How It Works. New York: Simon &
Schuster
Gamson WA. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Gastil J. 2000. By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy Through Deliberative Elections. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Gibson DR. 2003. Participation shifts: order and differentiation in group conversation. Soc. Forces 8 1(4): 133 5-
80
Ginsberg B. 1986. The Captive Public: How Mass Opinion Promotes State Power. New York: Basic Books
Ginsberg B. 1989. How polling transforms public opinion. In Manipulating Public Opinion: Essays on Public
Opinion as a Dependent Variable , ed. M Margolis, GAMauser, pp. 27 1-93 . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Habermas J. 1989 [1962]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Transl. T Burger. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press
Harmon MD. 2001. Poll question readability and 'don't know' reply. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 13:72-79
Herbst S. 1998. Reading Public Opinion: How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Hout M, Fischer CS. 2002. Why more Americans have no religious preference: politics and generations. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 67(2): 165-90
Huckfeldt R, Johnson PE, Sprague J. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within
Communication Networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Igo SE. 2007. The Averaged American: Surveys , Citizens , and the Making of a Mass Public. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Jacobs LR, Cook FL, Delli Carpini MX. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation
in America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Tasrer L. 2004. Adorno: A Political Biography. Transl. S Spencer. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Jepperson R. 1992. National scripts: the varying construction of individualism and opinion across the modern nation-
states. PhD Diss. Dep. Sociol., Yale Univ.
Keeter S, Zukin C, Andolina M, Jenkins K. 2002. The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Generational
Portrait. College Park, MD: Cent. Inf. Res. Civic Learn. Engagem.
Larsen CA. 2008. The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: how welfare regimes influence public support.
Comp. Polit. Stud. 41 (2): 145-68
Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
La Volpa AJ. 1991. The birth of public opinion. Wilson Q. Winter:46-54
Leib EJ. 2004. Deliberative Democracy in America: A Proposal for a Popular Branch of Government. University
Park: Pa. State Univ. Press
LezaunJ. 2007. A market of opinions: the political epistemology of focus groups. Sociol. Rev. 55(Suppl. 2): 1 30-
51
MacKenzie D. 2006. An Engine , Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press
Manza J, Cook FL. 2002. The impact of public opinion on public policy: the state of the debate. In Navigating
Public Opinion , ed. J Manza, FL Cook, IP Benjamin, pp. 17-32. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Markovits E. 2008. The Politics of Sincerity: Plato , Frank Speech , and Democratic Judgment. University Park: Pa.
State Univ. Press
McCombs M, Reynolds A, eds. 1999. The Poll with a Human Face: The National Issues Convention in Political
Communication. Mahwah, NT: Lawrence Erlbaum
McFarland K. 201 1 . Media influence and frame diversity in the debate over same-sex marriage. Commun. Rev.
In press
McLean IS, List C, Fishkin JS, Luskin RC. 2000. Does deliberation induce preference structuration? Evidence from
deliberative opinion polls. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Washington, DC, Aug. 30-Sept.
4
Merkle DM. 1996. Review: the national issues convention deliberative poll. Public Opin. Q. 60(4):588-619
Merritt AJ, Merritt RL, eds. 1970. Public Opinion in Occupied Germany: The OMGUS Surveys, 1945-1949.
Urbana: Univ. 111. Press
Merritt AJ, Merritt RL, eds. 1980. Public Opinion in Semisovereign Germany: The HICOG Surveys , 1949-1955.
Urbana: Univ. 111. Press
Merritt RL. 1995. Democracy Imposed: U.S. Occupation Policy and the German Public , 1945-1949. New Haven,
CT: Yale Univ. Press
Merton RK, Fiske M, Kendall PL. 1956. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. Glencoe,
IL: Free Press
Miller D. 1992. Deliberative democracy and social choice. Polit. Stud. 40(Issue Suppl. Sl):54-67
Moy r, Uastil J. ZUUo. predicting deliberative conversation: the impact ol discussion networks, media use, and
political cognitions. Polit. Commun. 23:443-60
Moy P, Xenos MA, Hess VK. 2006. Priming effects of late-night comedy. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 18:198-210
Mutz DC. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Newport F. 2004. Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People. New York: Warner
Books
New York Times 1992. Bias thrives in a vacuum. New York limes,) an. 8. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/
0 8/us/bias - thrives -in- a- vacuum . html
Nowotny S. 2003. The condition of becoming public. Transversal: Real Public Spaces (Sept.). Transl. A Derieg.
http://www.eipcp.net/transversal/1203/nowotny/en
OlickJK. 2007. Collective memory and nonpublic opinion: an historical note on a methodological controversy
about a political problem. Symb. Interact. 30:41-55
Osborne T, Rose N. 1999. Do the social sciences create phenomena? The example of public opinion research.
Br. J. Sociol. 50(3):367-96
Oskamp S, Schultz PW. 2005. Attitudes and Opinions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 3rd ed.
Page Bl, Jacobs LR. 2009. Class War? What Americans Really Think About Economic Inequality. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Page BI, Shapiro RY. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans ' Policy Preferences. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
raley J. 2001. Marketing Democracy: Power and Social Movements in Post-Dictatorship Chile. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Panagia D. 2006. The Poetics of Political Thinking. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Peer L. 1992. The practice of opinion polling as a disciplinary mechanism: a Foucauldian perspective. Int. J.
Public Opin. Res. 4(3):2 30-42
Perrin AJ. 2005. National threat and political culture: authoritarianism, anti-authoritarianism, and the
September 11 attacks. Polit. Psychol. 26:167-94
Perrin AJ. 2006. Citizen Speak: The Democratic Imagination in American Life. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Perrin AJ, McFarland K. 2008. The sociology of political representation and deliberation. Soc. Compass
2/4:1228-44
Perrin AJ, Vaisey SB. 2008. Parallel public spheres: distance and discourse in letters to the editor. Am. J. Sociol.
114:781-810
Persily N. 2008. Introduction. In Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy , ed. N Persily, J Citrin, PJ Egan,
pp. 3-17. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Pew Res. Cent. People Press/Princeton Surv. Res. Assoc. 2001. Religion and Public Life Survey , 2001. Roper
Study USPEW2001-03RELIG. Storrs, CT: Roper Cent. Public Opin. Res., Univ. Conn.
Pollock F, Adorno TW, Frankfurt Inst. Soc. Res. 201 1. Group Experiment and Other Writings: The Frankfurt
School on Public Opinion in Postwar Germany , ed. transl. introd. AJ Perrin, JK Olick. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Quinnipiac Univ. Poll. 2008. American voters oppose same-sex marriage Quinnipiac University National Poll finds,
but they don't want government to ban it. Poll Release, July 17. Quinnipiac Univ. Polling Inst., Hamden,
CT. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/xl295.xmlPReleaseIDs: 1 194
Rapoport RB. 1982. Sex differences in attitude expression: a generational explanation. Public Opin. Q. 46:86-96
Rousseau J-J. 1913. The Social Contract and the Discourses. Transl. GDH Cole. London: J. M. Dent
Ryfe DM. 2005. Does deliberative democracy work? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 8:49-71
Saad L. 2005. Gay rights attitudes a mixed bag. Gallup , April 29-May 1. http://www.gailup.com/poll/
16402/Gay-Rights-Attitudes-Mixed-Bag.aspx#2
Sanders LM. 1999. Democratic politics and survey research. Philos. Soc. Sci. 29:248-80
Sasson T. 1995. Crime Talk: How Americans Construct a Social Problem. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter
Saward M. 2006. The representative claim. Contemp. Polit. Theory 5:297-318
Schaeffer NC, Presser S. 2003. The science of asking questions. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2:65-88
Scheufele DA. 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of
political communication. Mass Commun. Soc. 3:297-316
Schneiderhan E, Khan S. 2008. Reasons and inclusion: the foundation of deliberation. Sociol. Theory 26(1): 1-24
Schudson M. 1997. Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Crit. Stud. Mass Commun. 14:297-309
Schudson M. 1998. The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. New York: Free Press
Schuman H. 2008. Method and Meaning in Polls and Surveys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Schuman H, Presser S. 1980. Public opinion and public ignorance: the fine line between attitudes and nonat-
titudes. Am. J. Sociol. 85:121 4-2 5
Schuman H, Presser S. 1996. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2nd ed.
Schwarz N. 2007. Cognitive aspects of survey methodology. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21:277-87
Sicinski A. 1970. "Don't know" answers in cross-national surveys. Public Opin. Q. 34(1): 126-29
Smith TW. 1987. That which we call welfare by any other name would smell sweeter: an analysis of the impact
of question wording on response patterns. Public Opin. Q. 51:75-83
Sniderman PM, Grob DB. 1996. Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
22:377-99
Sniderman PM, Piazza T. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Stern F. 1992 . The Whitewashing of the Yellow Badge: Antisemitism and Philosemitism in Postwar Germany. Transl.
W Templer. New York: Pergamon
Stimson JA. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Sturgis P, Smith P. 2010. Fictitious issues revisited: political interest, knowledge, and the generation of
nonattitudes. Polit. Stud. 58:66-84
Sunstein CR. 2009. Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Tilly C. 1983. Speaking your mind without elections, surveys, or social movements. Public Opin. Q. 47:465-83
Tourangeau R, Rasinski K. 1988. Cognitive-processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement.
Psychol. Bull. 103(3):299- 3 14
Tourangeau R, Rasinski K, Bradburn N, D'Andrade R. 1989. Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opin.
Q. 53(4):495-524
Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Wagner-Pacifici R. 1994. Discourse and Destruction: The City of Philadelphia versus MOVE. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Walsh KC. 2004. Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Wanke M. 1997. Making context effects work for you: suggestions for improving data quality from a construal
perspective. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 9(3):266-76
Warner M. 1992. The mass public and the mass subject. In Habermas and the Public Sphere , ed. C Calhoun,
pp. 377-401. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Warner M. 2002. Publics and counterpublics. Public Cult. 14:49-90
Wiggershaus R. 1994. The Frankfurt School: Its History , Theories , and Political Significance. Transl. M Robertson.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Wilson DC, Moore DW, McKay PF, Avery DR. 2008. Affirmative action programs for women and minorities:
expressed support affected bv question order. Public Opin. Q. 72:514-22
Wilson TD, Hodges SD. 1992. Attitudes as temporary constructions. In The Construction of Social Judgments,
ed. LL Martin, A Tesser, pp. 37-65. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA
Zaller J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Zuniga MM. 2008. An ode to the insta-poll! Blog posting, Dailykos.com, Oct. 2. http://www.dailykos.com/
story/2008/10/2/6 1 8479/-An-ode-to-the-insta-poll!

Social Theory and Public Opinion PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Theory and Public Opinion PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Theory and Public Opinion

Author(s): Andrew J. Perrin and Katherine McFarland

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011. 37:87-107

pollsters alike understand public opinion to be

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 89

www.annualrevieuos.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion C-l

which the answers emerged.

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 91

2 It is possible that the meaning of "don't know" has changed

<? 2 Perrin • McFarland

atively small, well-drawn sample. Translating OF POLLING

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opin

make informed judgments on the major issues TO PUBLIC OPINION

directly writing or calling one's elected leaders,

appearing in the mass media, or staging political

aggregated responses of a subjective.

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 95

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 97

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 99

ioo Perrin • McFarland

wwiv.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 101

102 Perrin • McFarland

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 103

104 Perrin • McFarland

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 105

106 Perrin • McFarland

www.annualreviews.org • Social Theory and Public Opinion 107

You might also like