Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
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.
Wiley-Blackwell and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to International Studies Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
InternationalStudiesQuarterly
(1992) 36, 439-466
Introduction
Many questions about the role of public opinion in foreign policy are at the center
of persisting debates between the liberal-democratic and realist approaches to
foreign affairs.Is public opinion a force for enlightenment-indeed, a necessary if
not sufficientcondition for sound foreign policy-as celebrated by the Wilsonians
Author'snote: For helpfulcommentsand suggestionson an earlierdraftof thispaper I am gratefulto Stephen
Earl Bennett,WilliamChittick,Thomas Graham,Jon Hurwitz,Benjamin Page, Mark Peffley,Philip Powlick,Bruce
and twoanonymousreviewersforInternational
Russett,Eugene Wittkopf,
StudiesQuarterly.
?) 1992 InternationalStudiesAssociation
440
Alternatively,
are Hans Morgenthauand othersof the realistschool correctin
and coherentdiplomacy,hindescribingpublic opinion as a barrierto thoughtful
to promotenationalintereststhattranscendthe moods and passions
deringefforts
of the moment?The realisttraditionis intenselyskepticalof the public's contribution to effectiveforeignpolicy.At the veryminimum,most realistswould distinguish betweenforeignpolicyand other public policyissues; the public mightbe
sufficiently
informedto deal withlocal issues thatimpingeon theirdailylives,but
foreignaffairsare too remote fromtheirexperience,and in any case theyhave
littleinclinationto become more informedabout such complexand remoteissues.
Finally,the effectiveconduct of diplomacyrequiressecrecy,flexibility,
and other
qualitiesthatwould be seriouslyjeopardized were the public to have a significant
impacton foreignpolicy.Thus, to permitthe public a strongvoice in policywould
be to place the democracies,ifnot the stability
of the internationalsystemitself,at
a distinctdisadvantage.Moreover,it would permitthe emotional to govern the
rational.Hans Morgenthausummarizedthe case againstan activerole forpublic
opinion in words that would gain the support of most if not all realists:"The
rationalrequirementsof good foreignpolicycannot fromthe outsetcount upon
the support of a public opinion whose preferencesare emotional rather than
rational"(Morgenthau,1978:558).
The long-standing
debate betweenliberalsand realistswas intensifiedbyWorld
War I, whichmightbe describedas the firstpublic relationswar.Fromitsinception
both the Allied and CentralPowers tried to win over "worldopinion" in various
ways,including publicationby many governmentsof highlyselectivedocument
collections-the so-calledcolor books-all ofwhichwere intendedto absolvethem
and to place the blame for the war on their adversaries.The propaganda war
duringthe conflictwas almostas intenseas thaton thebattlefield.
PresidentWilson'shopes fora new postwarworldorder depended significantly
on democratizingforeign affairsand diplomacy. Elihu Root, a distinguished
summarizedthe positionof
Republican and formerSecretaryof State,effectively
those who welcomed an increasingrole for the public in the conduct of foreign
affairs.
When foreignofficeswere ruled by autocraciesor oligarchiesthe danger of war
was in sinisterpurpose. When foreignaffairsare ruled bydemocraciesthe danger
of war will be in mistakenbeliefs.The world will be gainer by the change, for,
while thereis no human wayto preventa kingfromhavinga bad heart,thereis a
human way to prevent a people from having an erroneous opinion. (Root,
1922:5)
OLE R. HOLSTI
441
442
Let us examine each of these propositions,and the evidence upon which they
rested,in more detail.
PublicOpinionIs Volatile
3 Almond's use of the term "mood" differsfromthat of Frank Klingberg.Almond refersto sudden shiftsof
interestand preferences,whereas Klingberghas used the term to explain American foreignpolicy in termsof
generation-longsocietal swingsbetween introversionand extraversion.For the latterusage, see Klingberg(1952,
1979, 1983) and Holmes (1985).
OLE R. HOLSTI
443
444
A significant
reason forinterestin public opinion on foreignaffairsarisesfromthe
assumptionthatin some waysand at least some of the time it has an impact,for
betteror worse,on the conduct of the nation's externalpolicy.Certainlyit is easy
to find public expressionsby policy makers avowingthe importanceof public
opinion. Duringhis debateswithStephenDouglas,AbrahamLincoln assertedthat,
"withpublic sentimenton its side, everythingsucceeds; with public sentiment
against it, nothingsucceeds"; and in 1936 Secretaryof State Cordell Hull stated
that,"sincethe timewhen ThomasJefferson
insistedupon a 'decent respectto the
opinions of mankind,'public opinion has controlledforeignpolicyin all democracies"(NewYorkTimes,
Dec. 6, 1936).
Althoughsuch hyperbolicstatementsare unlikelyto withstandseriousempirical
scrutiny,the drivingforce behind much of the post-WorldWar II attentionto
public opinion on foreignpolicy issues was the fear that an ill-informedand
emotional mass public would serve as a powerfulconstrainton the conduct of
American diplomacy, establishing unwise limits on policy makers, creating
otherwisedoing
unrealisticexpectationsabout whatwas feasiblein foreignaffairs,
seriousmischiefto Americandiplomacyand, giventheAmericanrole in theworld,
As BernardCohen (1973) demonstratedin
perhaps even to internationalstability.
a criticalsurveyof the literature,however,the constrainingrole of public opinion
was oftenassertedbut rarelydemonstrated-or even put to a systematic
test.
By the middle of the 1960s a consensus in factseemed to emerge on a third
point: Public opinion has littleif any real impact on policy. Or, as the point
was made most pithilyby one State Department official:"To hell with public
opinion....
OLE R. HOLSTI
445
Although these studies did not answer all questions about the impact of the
public-for example, the realitiesof researchaccess required Cohen to focus on
preciselythose personswho are most shelteredfromthe effectsof elections-the
weightof the evidence would at least have assuaged those who shared fearsthat
mass public opinion "has shownitselfto be a dangerousmasterof decision when
the stakesare lifeand death" (Lippmann, 1955:20).
The Renaissanceof Interestin Public Opinion and ForeignPolicy
Justas WorldWar II and fearsof postwarisolationismamong the mass public gave
rise to concern about public opinion and its impacton foreignpolicy,the war in
Vietnamwas the impetusfora renewedinterestin the subject.It was a majorcatalyst
in stimulatinga reexaminationof the consensusthathad emergedduringthe two
decades afterWorldWar II. The VietnamWar had at least twodirecteffects.Most
broadly,
manyof thosewho had believedthata strongerexecutivehand on the tiller
of public policy,relatively
freefromthe whimsand vagariesof public moods, best
servesboth nationalinterestsand global stability,
came to reexaminetheirviewsin
the lightof the VietnamWar. Indeed, the widelyread columnistWalterLippmann,
who only a littlemore than a decade earlier had despaired of the tyranny
of a
fecklesspublic and had called for a strongerexecutiveto counteractthe mass
public, became a leading criticof the Johnson administration's
Vietnam policy;
eventuallyhe came to regardthepublic,whichhad become increasingly
skepticalof
thewareffort,
as more enlightenedthanthe administration.
At a narrower
level, some criticsof the war became increasinglypersuaded that
the Gallup, Harris,and other commercialpolls distortedpublic attitudestoward
the war by posing excessivelyrestrictiveand simplisticquestions. For example,
among the most widelyasked questions was whetherrespondentssupportedor
opposed currentAmerican policy in Vietnam; deeper probes that might have
offeredrespondents an opportunityto express their views about other policy
optionswere farless commonlyemployedby these pollingorganizations.Thus, in
addition to secondaryanalysesof surveydata relatingto the war (e.g., Mueller,
1973), the conflictin SoutheastAsia also stimulatedindependentsurveysdesigned
specificallyto assess foreignpolicyin greaterdepth and breadth than the typical
surveyconductedbyGallup and the othermajorpollingorganizations.
The firstof these studies, the Verba-Stanfordsurveys,focused on American
policy in Vietnam (Verba, Brody,Parker,Nie, Polsby,Ekman, and Black, 1967;
Verba and Brody,1970). Verba and his colleagues in factfound supportfor the
administration'sVietnam policy, but they also unearthed approval for such
alternativepolicies as negotiatingan end to the conflict.The period followingthe
Verba-Stanford
polls has witnesseda proliferationof studieswitha foreignaffairs
focus,includingsurveysof both the mass public (Rielly,1975, 1979, 1983, 1987,
1991; Hurwitz and Peffley,1987, 1990; Americans Talk Security,1987-1991;
Americans Talk Issues, 1991) and of opinion leaders (Barton, 1974-75, 1980;
Rielly, 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991; Russett and Hanson, 1975; Holsti and
Rosenau, 1984, 1988, 1990; Chittickand Billingsley,1989; Koopman, Snyder,and
Jervis,1990a, 1990b, 1991). As a consequence, we are no longer totallydependent
on evidence generated by the major polling organizations.Moreover, these
independent surveysare oftendesigned withpolicyand/or theoreticalconcerns
be probed bysecondaryanalysesof the Gallup and other,
thatcan onlyimperfectly
more generalpublic opinion polls.
Thus, armed with growingcentral archivesof data generated by the major
polling organizationsas well as evidence produced by the independent surveys,
duringthe past twodecades analystshave begun to challengeimportantaspectsof
the consensusdescribedabove.
446
4 By 1960, Almond himselfwas backing away from his most pessimisticdiagnoses. See his new preface to a
Policy.
reprintingof TheAmerican
PeopleandForeign1
5 "During the summerof 1965, as the JohnsonAdministration
was movingtowardfatefuldecisions regarding
Vietnam,George Ball warned:'We can't win,' he said, his deep voice dominatingthe Cabinet Room. 'The warwillbe
long and protracted,withheavycasualties.The mostwe can hope foris a messyconclusion.We mustmeasure this
loss thatwillresultfromwithdrawal.'Producinga chartthatcorrelatedpublic
long-termprice againstthe short-term
opinion withAmericancasualtiesin Korea, Ball predictedthat the Americanpublic would not supporta long and
inconclusivewar" (Clifford,1991:412).
6 Page and Shapiro (1982:34); see also Page and Shapiro (1983, 1984, 1988, 1992); Page, Shapiro,anidDempsey
(1987); Shapiro and Page (1988).
OLE R. HOLSTI
447
7 For additional evidence about the "rationalpublic," the stabilityof policy preferences,and issue voting,see
Bennett(1972:742), Free and Watts(1980:50), Wittkopf(1986, 1990), Graham (1986, 1988, 1989), Krosnick(1988a,
1988b, 1990, 1991), Russett(1990), and Peffleyand Hurwitz(1992a, 1992b).
448
OLE R. HOLSTI
449
450
PublicOpinionand ForeignPolicy
foreignpolicyattitudes.A
not sufficient
to describeall contoursof contemporary
has been suggestedbya
further
distinctionbetweenunilateralismand multilateralism
numberof studies(Wittkopf,
1986; Hinckley,1988, 1992; Chittickand Billingsley,
1989; Russett,1990). It is not reasonable to demand that any belief structure
and thereis indeed rather
should encompassall possibleaspectsof foreignaffairs,
persuasiveevidence thatattitudestowardsome ratherimportantissues cut across
an issue that is
the main dimensionsidentifiedabove. Trade and protectionism,
likelyto become more ratherthan less contentiousduringthe 1990s,is one such
example; questions revolvingaround Israel and American policy toward that
nationappear to formanotherclusterof attitudesthatdoes not fitneatlyinto the
MI/Cl scheme.
A somewhatdifferent
emergesfromseveral
approach towardattitudestructures
importantstudiesof the mass public conducted byJonHurwitzand Mark Peffley
(1987, 1990; Peffleyand Hurwitz,1985, 1992a, 1992b). In contrastto Converse's
search for "horizontal"coherence that relies on correlationsamong attitudes
towardvarious issues, Hurwitzand Peffleyproposed and tested a hierarchically
organized foreignpolicybelief structurein which specificpolicypreferencesare
anticommunism,
and isolationism)that,in turn,
derivedfrompostures(militarism,
are assumed to be constrainedby a set of corevalues (moralityof warfare,ethnocentrism)about the internationalcommunity.They found thatsuch structures
did in factexist among respondentsto theirsurveys.Thus, a fewrathergeneral
or a generalpreferencetowarda
beliefs-forexample,attitudestowardmilitarism,
"tough-minded"approach toward foreignaffairs-appear to serve as heuristics
whichenable one to respondin a reasonablycoherentmannerto a broad range of
issues, including defense spending, nuclear arms policy, militaryinvolvement
1987).
abroad,Sovietpolicy,and internationaltrade (Hurwitzand Peffley,
It is importantto state once again that none of these studies challenges the
overwhelmingevidence that the American public is poorly informed about
internationalaffairs;indeed, even the Persian Gulf War, the firstconflictto be
telecastin real time,increased the normallylow level of informationamong the
generalpublicbyonlya verymodestamount (Bennett,1992). Rather,thesestudies
appear to suggestthat,even in the absence of much factualknowledge,members
in order
of the mass public use some simple-perhaps even simplistic-heuristics
to make some sense of an increasingly
complexworld;a fewsalientcriteriarather
than completeinformationmayserveas the bases ofjudgment.Stated differently,
although lacking a deep reservoirof factualinformation,membersof the mass
public mayoperate as "cognitivemisers,"employinga fewsuperordinatebeliefsto
guide theirthinkingon a broad range of issues.For furtherevidence thatpeople
organize theirpoliticalworldsin richerand more diversewaysthan indicatedby
Converseand his colleagues,see Conoverand Feldman (1984).
Clearlythe recentresearchhas yetto produce a consensuson manyimportant
issues relatingto the structureand foreignpolicybeliefsamong the mass public.
Nevertheless,it is evidentthat the earlierconsensusdepictingpublic attitudesas
lackinganyreal coherence has been challengedfromvariousquarters.As a result
of substantialempiricalresearch,there is now a good deal of credible evidence
suggestingthatthe public does use variousheuristics-althoughnot necessarilythe
or internationalist-isolationist
traditional liberal-to-conservative
blueprints-for
organizingpoliticalthinking.
#3:Is PublicOpinionReallyImpotent?
Challenge
OLE R. HOLSTI
451
452
PublicOpinionand ForeignPolicy
". . .
OLE R. HOLSTI
453
454
OLE R. HOLSTI
455
OtherRecentResearchDevelopments
OpinionLeaders
456
assessing trends. Until the firstof the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
surveysin 1974 (Rielly,1975) -followed bysimilarstudiesin 1978, 1982, 1986,and
1990 (Rielly,1979, 1983, 1987, 1991)-and the ForeignPolicyLeadership surveys
institutedtwoyearslater (1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992), therewas relatively
littlesystematic
informationabout leadershipviewson foreignaffairs.In addition
to the CCFR and FPLP surveys,
duringrecentyearstherehave also been a number
of one-time studies of opinion leaders (Barton, 1974-75, 1980; Russett and
Hanson, 1975; Sussman,1976; Chittickand Billingsley,1989). A continuingseries
of surveys,focused on national securityexperts,has also been initiatedrecently
(Koopman, Snyder,andJervis,1990a, 1990b, 1991).
The prior question of identifying"opinion leaders" is among the possible
barriersand sources of controversy
in studiesof thistype.There is, of course, an
extensivedebate on the precisedefinitionof opinion leaders in the United States,
and if consensuson thatquestion were a prerequisiteto elite surveys,theywould
bypassed
never be undertaken.Those designingleadershipstudieshave typically
the broader question and selected subjectsin one of twoways:(1) identifying
key
groups
roles and then surveying
a sample of those fillingthem,or (2) identifying
thoughtto be logical sources of opinion leaders and then drawingsamples from
directoriesor rostersof such persons-for example, biographiesin Who'sWhoin
America, Who's Who in American Politics, and similar sources; subscribers to the
Although the question is far fromsettled,at this point the proponentsof the
opposite viewpointwould appear to have at least a plausible case. A number of
studieshave found that,by itself,the level of educationalattainmentis an inadeforidentifying
quate yardstick
opinionleaders.Extensiveanalysesof the 1968, 1980,
and 1984 National ElectionStudiesand the firstthreeChicago Council surveysby
indicatorof
Krosnickand Carnot (1988) indicatethateducation is an insufficient
the attentiveforeignpolicypublic,much less of foreignpolicyopinion leadership.
Their findingsreveal little support for the hypothesisthat the "foreignpolicy
attentivepublic"is composed simplyof highlyeducated personswho are concerned
of
withall aspectsof publicpolicy.An earlierstudyalso castdoubton the sufficiency
educationas a measureofleadership(Rogers,Stuhler,and Koenig,1967).
Several studies have compared the viewsof opinion leaders and the general
public (Luttbeg, 1968; Rielly,1975, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991; Holsti, 1987, 1991;
Chitticket al., 1990; Wittkopf,1990; Schneider, 1992). Much of the evidence
indicatesgreatersimilaritiesthan differencesin the waysthatrespondentsin the
two groups structure
their political beliefs (Luttbeg, 1968; Wittkopf,1990), but
Chittickand his colleagues (1990) found some differenceswhen foreignpolicy
beliefstructuresare tracedover time.On the otherhand, thereexistsome rather
of theirpolicy opinions. A few examples
substantialdifferencesin the substance
fromthe mostrecent (1990) Chicago Council surveywillbe sufficient
to illustrate
OLE R. HOLSTI
457
some of the more persistentgaps betweenopinion leaders and the general public
(Rielly,1991). Leaders overwhelmingly
(97%) supported an active U.S. role in
worldaffairs,
whereasthe general public was more tepid in itsenthusiasm(59%).
Both groupshave shownlittlevariationin thisrespectover a period of nearlytwo
decades. Almostthreefourthsof the leaders agreed thatthe Cold War has ended,
but only about a third of the general public expressed that view. Whereas 90
percentof the leaders favoredforeigneconomic aid, especiallyto EasternEurope,
onlyhalfthatproportionof the generalpublic did so; moreover,among the latter,
fightingdrugsin Latin Americawas a favoritetargetof assistanceprograms.When
asked to identifythe mostimportantforeignpolicyproblems,the top threeitems
forleaders included issueswithan overwhelmingly
internationalcharacter:spread
of nuclear weapons,armscontrol,and improvementof the internationalenvironment.The comparablelistforthe generalpublic included issueswitha significant
domestic dimension: protectionof Americanjobs, protectionof U.S. business
interestsabroad, and adequate energysupplies.
The momentouschanges in the formerSovietUnion and elsewherethathave
characterizedthe period since 1988 suggestthe possibility-butcertainlynot the
inevitability-ofa "great debate" on the appropriate values, goals, roles, and
strategiesthat the United Statesshould pursue in the post-Cold War era. If one
assumes that top officialsand opinion leaders will have overwhelminginfluence,
whereasthe generalpublic willhave littleor none, then the evidencesuggeststhat
the United Stateswillcontinueto pursuean internationalist
foreignpolicy,broadly
defined. In that case, the debates are likelyto center on how the United States
participates(hard-linersvs. accommodationists).If, on the other hand, public
preferencesplay a significantrole in shaping at least the broad contours of
the
Americanforeignpolicy,then the policydebates are likelyto focuson whether
United Statesshould playan activeinternationalrole or focusmore on issuesthat
vs.isolationists).
have a directdomesticimpact(internationalists
TheSourcesofForeign
PolicyOpinions
458
1948 election, Berelson and his colleagues (1954) found a limited correlation
between domesticeconomic issues and either civilrightsor internationalissues.
'To know,forexample,thatsomeone supportedthe New Deal on economic issues
provided no indication of his internationalor civil rightsposition" (Berelson,
Lazarsfeld,and McPhee, 1954:197-198). For furtherevidence of the lack of
correlationbetweendomesticand foreignpolicyissues duringthe decade and a
halfafterWorldWarII, see Campbellet al. (1964:113) and Key (1961:158).
Duringthe past twodecades the linesof cleavageon domesticand foreignpolicy
issues have increasinglycome to overlap (Russettand Hanson, 1975; Wittkopf,
1990). The evidence is especiallystrongat the level of opinion leadership (Holsti
and Rosenau, 1988). Consequently,the putative,moderatinginfluenceof cross-cuttingcleavageshas oftenbeen absentin the stridentpoliticsof the 1970sand 1980s.
Two other "gaps" have received considerableattentionfromopinion analysts.
The VietnamWar era spawned interestin generationaltheoriesof politics.The
fromKarl Mannheimto Sam Huntington,
writingof distinguishedsocial scientists,
seemed to offercogent hypothesesto explain the divisionsof Americansociety
duringthe Vietnamtrauma,pitting,accordingto some, the "Munichgeneration,"
which had witnessedthe bitterconsequences of effortsto appease expansionist
dictators,againstthe 'Vietnamgeneration,"whichargued thatitwas experiencing
effortto apply the "lessonsof Munich" to
the poisoned legacyof an ill-informed
the jungles of SoutheastAsia (Allison,1970-71; Roskin,1974). This explanation
has encountered mixed success when confrontedwith hard evidence. Wittkopf
(1990) found evidence of generationaldifferencesamong the general public.
However,at the level of opinion leaders the primarylines of cleavageappear to lie
withinratherthan between generations(Holsti and Rosenau, 1980, 1990). The
generationalhypothesisappears to farebest when applied to specificgroups such
as politicalactivists(Converse,1987) or protesters(Jennings,1987).
The term "gender gap" has also become a prominentpart of our political
vocabulary.There is some evidence of a systematicgender gap. For example,
Converse (1987:61) found substantialgender differencesand that "'Rambo'
from males." According to Baxter and
themes come very disproportionately
Lansing (1983), war/peaceconcernsare an exceptionto the generalrule thatmen
and women agree on most issues. Wittkopf(1990) also found gender-based
and cooperativeinternationdifferencesalong both the militantinternationalist
alist dimensions, and another study identified gender as among the most
importantdemographicpredictorsof foreignpolicy attitudes(Fite, Genest,and
Wilcox, 1990). A broad examination of surveydata led Shapiro and Mahajan
(1986) to the conclusion that systematicgender differencesalso emerge from
"compassion" issues and those involvingregulation and protection.However,
Conover (1988) argues that "feminism,"an ideological predispositiontowarda
certainstance on women's issues,overshadowsgender in explainingbeliefsand
values.A numberof recentAmericansTalk Securitysurveysalso cast some doubt
Women consistently
on stereotypical
viewsof gender differences.
expressedmore
skepticalopinions about the USSR than did men. Althoughwomen were more
inclined to describethemselvesas doves (ATS-9:119), men offeredmore support
on all fivearmscontrolitemsby an averagemarginof 6 percent;expressedmore
trustin the USSR on six of seven items (6 percent); assessed Gorbachev more
on eightitems(9 percent); had more benignviewsof Sovietmotiveson
favorably
six of nine items (3 percent); assessed relationsbetween the superpowersmore
favorablyon ten of thirteenitems (5 percent); and expressed a more optimistic
viewon the likelihoodof nuclear war (10 percent). In the onlyexception to this
pattern,womenweremore criticalon threeitemsrelatingto the impactof defense
spending(6 percent).
OLE R. HOLSTI
459
Conclusion
The consensus of the mid-1960son the nature,structure,and impact of public
opinion has clearly come under vigorous challenge during the past quarter
century.The VietnamWar,whilenot the sole causal factorin the reexaminationof
the conventionalwisdom,was certainlya catalyst.If a new consensus has yet to
emerge on all of the issues discussedabove, at least it seems safe to statethatthe
fieldis markedbyinnovativeresearchand activedebateson the implicationsof the
results.Nevertheless,there are at least fourareas thatseem to call foradditional
effort:case studiesemployingarchivalsources thatwill providethe most directly
relevant evidence on the impact of public opinion, cross-nationalresearch,
developmentof standardquestions in order to encourage cumulationof survey
results,and researchthatwill enable us to distinguishresultsthat are time-and
context-bound
fromthosethattranscendthe Cold War period.
As indicatedearlier,byfarthe leastwell developed of the areas discussedin this
essayhas been the opinion-policylink.We have impressivecorrelationalevidence
that policy changes are in fact predominantlyin the directionfavoredby the
public,but our confidencewould be enhanced by more substantialevidence of a
causal nature.The typeof researchdesign employedin the previouslycited study
by Thomas Graham (1989), combining analyses of surveydata with archival
researchin orderto assessthe causal impactof public opinion on decisionmaking,
is a good model forfuturestudies.More researchof thistypeshould go a long way
towardansweringsome of the mostimportantquestionsabout the opinion-policy
relationship.It should also providefurtherinsightinto otherimportantquestions:
What are the relevantindicatorsof public opinion? How much do polls matter?
What about expressionsof congressionalpreferences?What about the impact of
the media or interest groups? How and why do policy makers (and
administrations)differ in their sensitivityto differentindicators of public
sentiments?
It willno doubt have occurredto readersby now thatthisessayis almostwholly
confined to evidence of American public opinion. But questions about public
opinion and foreignpolicyare obviouslyof much broaderconcern,especiallyin an
era of expandingdemocracy,and a good deal of futureeffortshould be directed
towardcomparativeanalysis.Some examples of innovativecomparativeresearch
include Eichenberg (1989) and Risse-Kappen (1991). The latter found that
460
OLE R. HOLSTI
461
References
P., J. H. ALDRICH, AND J. RHODE (1990) Change and Continuity
in the 1988 Election.
Washington,DC: CongressionalQuarterly.
AcHEN, C. H. (1975) Mass PoliticalAttitudesand the SurveyResponse. American
PoliticalScienceReview
69:1218-1231.
ALDRICH,J. H., J. L. SULLIVAN, AND E. BORGIDA (1989) ForeignAffairs
and Issue Voting:Do Presidential
PoliticalScienceReview83:123-141.
Candidates "Waltzbeforea Blind Audience?"American
ALLISON, G. T. (1970-71) Cool It: The ForeignPolicyofYoungAmericans.Foreign
Policy1:144-160.
ALMOND, G. (1950) 7he American
Peopleand Foreign
Policy.New York:Praeger.Reprintedin 1960 witha
new introduction.
ALMOND, G. (1956) Public Opinion and NationalSecurity.PublicOpinionQuarterly
20:371-378.
AMERICANS TALK ISSUES (1991)
Serial National Surveys of Americans on Public Policy Issues.
Washington,DC: AmericansTalk Issues Foundation.
AMERICANS TALK SECURITY (1987-91) A Series of FifteenSurveysConcerningNational SecurityIssues.
Winchester,MA: AmericansTalk Security.
BAILEY, T. A. (1948) 7'heMan in theStreet:
7he ImpactofAmerican
PublicOpinionon ForeignPolicy.New
York:Macmillan.
BARDES, B. A., AND R. OLDENDICK (1978) Beyond Internationalism:
The Case forMultipleDimensions
in ForeignPolicyAttitudes.SocialScienceQuarterly
59:496-508.
BARTELS, L. M. (1991) ConstituencyOpinion and CongressionalPolicyMaking:The Reagan Defense
Buildup. American
PoliticalScienceReviezv
85:457-474.
ABRAMSON,
462
PublicOpinionand ForeignPolicy
38:507-530.
AthertonPress.
MichiganPress.
BEAL,R. S., AND R. H. HINCKLEY (1984) PresidentialDecision Making and Opinion Polls. Annals
472:72-84.
BENNETr, S. E. (1972) Attitude Structuresand Foreign Policy Opinions. Social ScienceQuarterly
55:732-742.
BENNETT,S. E. (1992) The Persian Gulf War's Impact on Americans' Political Information.
Washington,DC: NES Conferenceon "The PoliticalConsequences ofWar."
BERELSON,B., P. F. LAZARSFELD,
ANDW. N. MCPHEE (1954) Voting.
Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
BILLINGTON,J.(1987) Realismand Visionin ForeignPolicy.Foreign
Affairs
65:630-652.
BRODY,R., AND C. SHAPIRO(1989) "A Reconsiderationof the RallyPhenomenon in Public Opinion." In
PoliticalBehavior
Annual,edited byS. Long. Boulder,CO: WestviewPress.
AND J. G. BLIGHT [EDITOR] (1987) "October 27, 1962: Transcriptof the
BUNDY, M. [TRANSCRIBER],
Meetings of the ExComm." InternationalSecurity12:30-92.
University Press.
CASPARY,W. R. (1970) The Mood Theory:A Studyof Public Opinion and Foreign Policy.Ame7ican
PoliticalScienceReview64:536-547.
CHITTICK, W., AND K. R. BILLINGSLEY(1989) The Structureof Elite Foreign Policy Beliefs. Western
PoliticalQuarterly
42:201-224.
W., K R. BILLINGSLEY, AND R. TRAvIS (1990) Persistenceand Change in Elite and Mass
AttitudestowardU.S. ForeignPolicy.PoliticalPsychology
11:385-402.
CLIFFORD,C., WITHR. HOLBROOK (1991) CounseltothePresident:
A Memoir.
New York:Random House.
COHEN, B. C. (1973) ThePublic'sImpactonForeign
Policy.Boston:Little,Brown.
CONOVER,P.J. (1988) Feministsand the Gender Gap. JournalofPolitics
50:985-1010.
CONOVER,P. J.,AND S. FELDMAN(1984) How People Organize the PoliticalWorld:A SchematicModel.
JournalofPoliticalScience28:95-126.
Amenican
edited
CONVERSE,P. E. (1964) "The Natureof BeliefSystemsin Mass Publics."In Ideology
and Discontent,
byD. E. Apter.New York:Free Press.
CONVERSE,P. E. (1987) "The EnduringImpact of the VietnamWar on AmericanPublic Opinion." In
theStorm:
American
a Decadeafter
theVietnam
War.Taipei, R.O.C.: Academic Sinica.
Society
After
DAvIS,J. A. (1987) The Future Study of Public Opinion: A Symposium.Public Opinion Quarterly
51:S178-S179.
DESTLER, I. M., L. H. GELB, ANDA. LAKE (1984) Our OwnWorst
New York:Simon and Schuster.
Enemy.
DEVINE,D. J. (1970) TheAttentive
Public.Chicago: Rand McNally.
in Western
EICHENBERG,R. (1989) Public Opinionand National Security
Europe.Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Press.
University
FAGEN,R. (1960) Some Assessmentsand Uses of Public Opinion in Diplomacy.PublicOpinionQuarterly
24:448-457.
in American
Press.
NationalElections.
New Haven,CT: Yale University
FIORINA,M. (1981) Retrospective
Voting
FITE, D., M. GENEST,AND C. WILCOX (1990) Gender Differencesin Foreign PolicyAttitudes.American
PoliticsQuarterly
18:492-513.
FOSTER,H. S. (1983) Activism
ReplacesInternationalism.
Washington,DC: Foxhall Press.
Comes ofAge ... Again. PublicOpinion3 (April-May):
FREE, L., ANDW. WATTS (1980) Internationalism
46-50.
GENCO, S. J. (1984) The AttentivePublic and American Foreign Policy.Ph.D. dissertation,Stanford
CHITTICK,
University,Stanford, CA.
StatePower.New York:Basic Books.
GINSBURG,B. (1988) TheCaptivePublic:How Mass OpinionPromotes
and ForeignPolicy:Four Case StudiesfromtheFormative
GRABER,D. A. (1968) PublicOpinion,thePresident,
Years.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
GRAEBNER,N. A. (1983) "PublicOpinion and Foreign Policy:A PragmaticView."In Interaction:
Foreign
OLE R. HOLSTI
463
GRAHAM,
T. W. (1986) PublicAttitudes
towardActiveDefense:
ABM and StarWars,1945-1985. Cambridge,
MA: CenterforInternationalStudies,M.I.T.
GRAHAM, T. W. (1988) The Patternand Importanceof Public Knowledgein the Nuclear Age.Journalof
Conflict
Resolution
32:319-334.
GRAHAM, T. W. (1989) The Politicsof Failure: StrategicNuclear Arms Control,Public Opinion, and
DomesticPoliticsin the United States-1945-1980. Ph.D. dissertation,
M.I.T., Cambridge,MA.
HERO,A. O., JR. (1969) Liberalism-Conservatism
Revisited:Foreign vs. Domestic Federal Policies,
1937-1967. PublicOpinionQuarterly
33:399-408.
R. C. (1981) Powerand thePeople:Executive
HILDERBRAND,
Management
ofPublicOpinionin Foreign
Affairs,
1897-1921. Chapel Hill: University
of NorthCarolina Press.
HILL, K. A. (1992) The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policymaking:American Mass Attitudesand
CongressionalVotingon South AfricanSanctions.Paper presentedat the annual meetingof the
InternationalStudiesAssociation,Atlanta,GA.
HINCKLEY, R. H. (1988) Public AttitudestowardKey Foreign PolicyEvents.JournalofConflict
Resolution
32:295-318.
HINCKLEY,
R. H. (1992) People,Polls,and Policy-Makers.
New York:LexingtonBooks.
HOLMES,
J. E. (1985) TheMood/Interest
Theory
ofAmerican
ForeignPolicy.Lexington:University
Press of
Kentucky.
HOLSTI,0. R. (1979) The Three-Headed Eagle: The United States and SystemChange. International
StudiesQuarterly
23:339-359.
HOLSTI,0. R. (1987) "PublicOpinion and Containment."In Containing
theSovietUnion,edited byT. L.
Deibel andJ. L. Gaddis. Washington,DC: Pergamon-Brassey's.
HOLSTI,0. R. (1991) "AmericanReactions to the USSR: Public Opinion." In Soviet-American
Relations
after
theColdWar,edited byR.Jervisand S. Bialer.Durham,NC: Duke University
Press.
HOLSTI,0. R., AND J. N. ROSENAU (1979) Vietnam,Consensus, and the Belief Systemsof American
Leaders. WorldPolitics32:1-56.
HOLSTI,0. R., AND J.N. ROSENAU
(1980) Does Where You Stand Depend on When You Were Born?
The Impact of Generation on Post-VietnamForeign Policy Beliefs. Public Opinion Quarterly
44:1-22.
HOLSTI, 0. R., AND J. N. ROSENAU (1984) American
in WorldAffairs:
Leadership
Vietnam
and theBreakdown
ofConsensus.
London: Allen and Unwin.
HOLSTI, 0. R., AND J. N. ROSENAU (1988) The Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs of American
Leaders.JournalofConflict
Resolution
32:248-294.
HOLSTI, 0. R., AND J. N. ROSENAU (1990) The Structureof Foreign PolicyAttitudesamong American
Leaders.JournalofPolitics
52:94-125.
HUGHES, B. B. (1978) TheDomestic
Context
ofAmerican
Foreign
Policy.San Francisco:Freeman.
HUGHES, T. L. (1980) The Crack-Up.Foreign
Policy40:33-60.
HULL, C. (1936) Speech at Pan AmericanConference,Buenos Aires,December 5, 1936. Text in New
YorkTimes[Dec. 6, 1936], p. 47.
HURWITZ, J., AND M. PEFFLEY (1987) How Are Foreign Policy AttitudesStructured?A Hierarchical
Model. American
PoliticalScienceReview81:1099-1120.
HURwITz,J., AND M. PEFFLEY (1990) Public Images of the SovietUnion.Journal
ofPolitics52:3-28.
JENNINGS, M. K. (1987) Residue of a Movement:The Aging of the American ProtestGeneration.
American
PoliticalScienceReview81:367-382.
JENTLESON, B. W. (1992) The Pretty
PrudentPublic: Post-PostVietnamAmericanOpinion on the Use
of MilitaryForce. International
StudiesQuarterly
36:49-73.
KENNAN, G. F. (1951) American
of Chicago Press.
Diplomacy,
1900-1950. Chicago: University
KEY,V. O., JR.(1961) PublicOpinionand American
New York:Knopf.
Democracy.
KINDER, D. R. (1983) "Diversity
and Complexityin AmericanPublic Opinion." In PoliticalScience:The
State of theDiscipline,edited by A. W. Finifter.Washington,DC: American Political Science
Association.
KINDER, D. R., AND D. 0. SEARs (1985) "Public Opinion and PoliticalAction." In HandbookofSocial
Psychology,
edited byE. Aronsonand G. Lindzey.New York:Random House.
KLINGBERG, F. L. (1952) The HistoricalAlternationof Moods in AmericanForeignPolicy.World
Politics
4:239-273.
KLINGBERG, F. L. (1979) "Cyclical Trends in American Foreign Policy Moods and Their Policy
Implications."In Challengesto America:UnitedStatesForeignPolicyin the1980s, edited by C. W.
Kegley,Jr.,and P.J. McGowan.BeverlyHills,CA: Sage.
KLINGBERG, F. L. (1983) CyclicalTrendsin American
ForeignPolicyMoods:The Unfolding
ofAmerica'sWorld
Role.Lanham, MD: University
PressofAmerica.
464
KOOPMAN,
C.,J. SNYDER,
AND
Journal
ofSocialIssues45:119-138.
KOOPMAN,
C.,
WITH
J. SNYDER
AND
Crisis.
Journal
ofConflict
Resolution
34:694-722.
KOOPMAN,
C., J. SNYDER, AND R.JERVIS (1991) U.S. Elite Viewsabout Change and Changes in Viewson
Soviet-U.S. Relations. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the InternationalSocietyof
PoliticalPsychology,
Helsinki.
KREISBERG, M. (1949) "DarkAreasof Ignorance."
In PublicOpinionand Foreign
editedby
Policy,
L. Markel.New York:Harper.
KROSNICK,
Psychology
24:240-255.
KROSNICK, J. A. (1988b) The Role of AttitudeImportance in Social Evaluation: A Study of Policy
Preferences,PresidentialCandidate Evaluations,and Voting Behavior.JournalofPersonality
and
SocialPsychology
55:196-210.
andForeign
ChinaPolicy.
CT: Greenwood
KUSNITZ,L. A. (1984) Public
Opinion
Policy:
America's
Westport,
Press.
W. (1977) "AmericanPolicy-Makers,
Public Opinion and the Outbreak of the Cold War,
1945-1950." In The Originsof theCold Warin Asia, edited by Y. Nagai and A. Iriye.New York:
Columbia University
Press.
Consent:
PublicOpinionand American
CT:
LEIGH, M. (1976) Mobilizing
Foreign
Policy.Westport,
GreenwoodPress.
LAFEBER,
andAmerican
NewYork:Morrow.
LEVERING,R. B. (1978) ThePublic
Foreign
Policy,
1918-1978.
53:860-876.
Journal
ofPolitics
New York:Macmillan.
LIPPMANN,
W. (1922) Public
Opinion.
W. (1925) ThePhantom
Public.
LIPPMANN,
New York:Harcourt,Brace.
inthePublic
LIPPMANN,
W. (1955)Essays
Philosophy.
Boston:Little,Brown.
LIPPMANN,
W.,AND C. METZ(1920) A Test of the News.Special Supplement.NewRepublic
23:1-42.
LIPSET,S. M. (1966) The President,the Polls,and Vietnam.Transaction
(September/October):19-24.
LUTTBEG, N. R. (1968) The Structureof Beliefsamong Leaders and the Public. PublicOpinionQuarterly
32:398-409.
In EagleEntangled:
U.S.
MANDELBAUM, M., AND W. SCHNEIDER (1979) "The New Internationalisms."
edited byK. A. Oye etal. New York:Longman.
Foreign
Policyin a Complex
World,
PublicOpinion.PacificGrove,CA:
MARGOLIS, M., AND G. A. MAUSER, EDS. (1989) Manipulating
Brooks/Cole.
MARRA, R. A., C. W. OSTROM, AND D. M. SIMON (1990) Foreign Policy and PresidentialPopularity.
Resolution
34:588-623.
Journal
ofConflict
in Congress.
Political
Science
Influence
American
W. E., AND D. E. STOKES (1963) Constituency
MILLER,
Review57:45-46.
A. D. (1979) ConsistencybetweenPublic Preferencesand National PolicyDecision. American
MONROE,
Politics
7:3-19.
Quarterly
5thed.,rev.NewYork:Knopf.
H.J.(1978)Politics
among
Nations,
Presidents
andPublicOpinion.
NewYork:Wiley.
MUELLER,J.E. (1973) War,
and Opinionin theAmerican
Electorate.
NEUMAN,W. R. (1986) TheParadoxofMassPolitics:
Knowledge
MORGENTHAU,
NIE,
NIE,
Press.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
N., AND K. ANDERSON (1974) Mass Belief SystemsRevisited:Political Change and Attitude
Structure.
36:540-591.
Journal
ofPolitics
MA:Harvard
Voter.
American
N., S. VERBA, AND J. R. PETROCIK (1976) TheChanging
Cambridge,
Press.
University
OLE R. HOLSTI
465
NINCIC,M. (1988) The United States,the Soviet Union, and the Politicsof Opposites. WorldPolitics
40:452-475.
PAGE,B. I., AND R. Y. SHAPIRO (1982) Changes in Americans' Policy Preferences,1935-1979. Public
OpinionQuarterly
46:24-42.
PAGE,B. I., AND R. Y. S-APIRO (1983) Effectsof Public Opinion on Policy. AmericanPoliticalScience
Review77:175-190.
PAGE,B. I., AND R. Y. SHAPIRO
(1984) Presidentsas Opinion Leaders: Some New Evidence. PolicyStudies
Journal12:649-661.
PAGE,B. I., AND R. Y SHAPIRO(1988) Foreign Policy and the Rational Public. Journalof Conflict
Resolution
32:211-247.
Policy
PAGE, B. I., AND R. Y. SHAPIRO (1992) The RationalPublic:FiftyYearsof Trendsin Americans'
of Chicago Press.
Preferences.
Chicago: University
ANDG. R. DEMPSEY (1987) What Moves Public Opinion? AmericanPolitical
PAGE, B. I., R. Y. SHAPIRO,
ScienceReview81:23-43.
Policy72:3-30.
PARRY, R., AND P. KORNBLUTH
(1988) Iran-Contra'sUntold Story.Foreign
T. G. (1979) PresidentialForeignPolicy,Public Opinion, and Congress:The TrumanYears.
PATERSON,
Diplomatic
History
3:1-18.
of
PEFFLEY,
M. A., ANDJ.HURWITZ
(1985) A HierarchicalModel of AttitudeConstraint.AmericanJournal
PoliticalScience29:871-890.
PEFFLEY, M., ANDJ. HURWITZ (1922a) InternationalEventsand ForeignPolicyBeliefs:Public Responses
JournalofPoliticalScience36:431-461.
to ChangingSoviet-AmericanRelations.American
PoliticalBehavior.
PEFFLEY,
M., ANDJ. HURWITZ (1922b) Models ofAttitudeConstraintin ForeignAffairs.
POWLICK,
P. J. (1991) The AttitudinalBases for Responsivenessto Public Opinion among Foreign
Resolution
35:611-641.
PolicyOfficials.
JournalofConflict
P. J. (forthcoming)"Public Opinion and the Lebanon Intervention."In Mass Communication,
POWLICK,
Westport,CT: Greenwood.
Democratization,
and thePoliticalProcess.
PublicOpinionand U.S. ForeignPolicy1975. Chicago: Chicago Council
RIELLY, J. E., ED. (1975) American
on ForeignRelations.
PublicOpinionand U.S. ForeignPolicy1979. Chicago: Chicago Council
RIELLY,J. E., ED. (1979) American
on ForeignRelations.
PublicOpinionand U.S. ForeignPolicy1983. Chicago: Chicago Council
RIELLY,J. E., ED. (1983) American
on ForeignRelations.
PublicOpinionand U.S. ForeignPolicy1987. Chicago: Chicago Council
RIELLY,
J. E., ED. (1987) American
on ForeignRelations.
RIELLY, J. E., ED. (1991) American
PublicOpinionand U.S. ForeignPolicy1991. Chicago: Chicago Council
on ForeignRelations.
RiSSE-KAPPEN,T. (1991) Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal
Democracies. World
Politics43:479-512.
AND D. KOENIG(1967) A Comparison of Informedand General Public
W. C., B. STUHLER,
ROGERS,
31:242-252.
Opinion on U.S. ForeignPolicy.PublicOpinionQuarterly
1:3-10.
Affairs
RoOT,E. (1922) A Requisiteforthe Success of Popular Diplomacy.Foreign
N. (1961) PublicOpinionandForeign
Policy.New York:Random House.
RoSENAU,J.
ROSKIN,M. (1974) From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam: ShiftingGenerational Paradigms and Foreign
89:563-588.
Policy.PoliticalScienceQuarterly
Press.
B. (1990) Controlling
theSword.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
RUSSETT,
and Ideology:The ForeignPolicyBeliefsof American
RUSSETT, B. M., AND E. C. HANSON (1975) Interest
Businessmen.
San Francisco:Freeman.
edited by
SCHNEIDER, W. (1992) "The Old Politicsand the New World Order." In Eagle in a NewWorld,
K. A. Oye, R.J. Lieber,and D. Rothchild.New York:HarperCollins.
R. Y., AND H. MAHAJAN
SHAPIRO,
(1986) Gender Differencesin Policy Preferences:A Summaryof
Trends fromthe 1960s to the 1980s. PublicOpinionQuarterly
50:42-61.
SHAPIRO, R. Y, AND B. I. PAGE (1988) Foreign Policy and the Rational Public. Journalof Conflict
Resolution
32:211-247.
of Political Ideology and Public
SNIDERMAN, P. M., AND P. E. TETLOCK (1986) "Inter-relationship
edited byM. G. Hermann. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Opinion." In PoliticalPsychology,
in El Salvadorand Nicaragua. Public
SOBEL, R. (1989) Public Opinion about United StatesIntervention
53:114-128.
OpinionQuarterly
466