The Formation of Attitudes and Opinions
Behavioral studies in the field of politics have long recognized the need for a thorough understanding of the fields of
psychology, sociology, and anthropology. These disciplines
often present an array of competing positions but their synthesis offers a basis to more accurately examine attitude
research (George, 1958).
Specifically, how does attitude
affect the general disposition of a superintendent or legislator
to take action in a certain way?
George (1958) stated that
the notion that political man is a purposive being, engaged in
instrumental behavior and exercising reason in attempting to
choose his course of action wisely is, of course, a traditional and
highly respected idea in political science.
This notion, has long
served as the basis for interpreting and accounting for political
action by means of the so-called “rational hypothesis.” (p. 21)
Karl Popper has chosen to interpret political action by
means of the rational hypothesis, the “logic-of-the-situation”
type of explanation (Popper, 1952). Those individuals choosing to “act” are assumed to choose among alternative courses
of action based on their assessment of logic of the situation
that they are confronting. For example, if an inner city school
is labeled as a failing school, a legislator may perceive it is a
result of poor teaching and a lack of proper administration.
However, the school may have far more challenges than
other schools, in that there may be many more socioeconomic barriers preventing the school from succeeding.
One study (George, 1958) claimed that “one takes account
of the actual and programmed use of these three functions—
‘object appraisal,’ ‘social adjustment,’ and ‘externalization’”
(p. 21). All of these factors apply motivational forces in
forming opinions. Likewise, “reality testing,” “reward and
punishment,” and “ego defense” are three additional motivational contexts of attitudes (Saruoff & Katz, 1954).
Researchers have validated that no single factor forms opinions or shapes attitudes.
Social Influences
The process of opinion change is greatly affected by social
influence. In a study on opinion change by Kelman (1961),
he identified processes of social influences that guide all
opinion changes: compliance, identification, and
internalization.
Compliance can be said to occur when an individual
accepts influence from another person or from a group
because he hopes to achieve favorable reaction from the
other. He may be interested in attaining certain specific
rewards or avoiding certain specific punishments that the influencing agent controls (Kelman, 1961).
For example, he
stated that “some individuals may compulsively try to say
the expected thing in all situations and please everyone with
whom they come in contact out of a disproportionate need
for favorable responses from others” (Kelman, 1961, p. 62).
The individual learns to say or do the expected thing in special situations, regardless of their private beliefs.
The second social influence that guides the development
of opinions is identification. Identification can be said to
occur when an individual adopts behavior derived from
another person or a group because this behavior is associated
with a satisfying, self-defining relationship with a given person or group. It contributes to a person’s self image. In
accepting influence through identification, an individual has
a way of establishing or maintaining the desired relationship
to the other party. Opinions formed through identification
may take all or part of the role of the influencing agent. He or
she defines their role in terms of the role of the other (Kelman,
1961). An example of this may include political party affiliation or caucus membership. An individual’s opinion is influenced by a desire to maintain affiliation with the group and
often embraces the opinion of the group whole heartedly to
maintain acceptance.
The third social influence that affects opinion formation
of an individual is that of internalization. It is said to occur
when an individual accepts influence because the induced
behavior is congruent with his own value system. The individual adopts it because he finds it useful for the solution of
a problem or because it is congenial to his own orientation or
that is demanded by his own values (Kelman, 1961).
Compliance, identification, and internalization are, in
effect, tools needed to influence or internalize change.
Core Beliefs and Values
An individual’s core beliefs and values represent the basic
fiber of an individual as he or she enters the arena on the first
day of political interaction. To some extent, policies and
actions are often judged right or wrong because of their
implications for deeply held values (Rokeach, 1973). A set of
widely shared beliefs, values, and norms concerning the relationship of citizens to their government and to one another in
matters affecting public affairs is often recognized as political culture (McCloskey & Zaller, 1984).
Three widely shared beliefs that tend to define the core
values of an individual are (a) a belief in equal opportunity,
(b) support for economic individualism, and (c) support for
the free enterprise system (Devine, 1972). All three of these
are major components of what Devine identified as the basis
of American public opinion and have been argued to be central to the way in which people in the United States think
about politics.
Economic individualism, the belief which people should
get ahead because of their own hard work, is a core element
in accounts of American values and beliefs. Some of the
earliest European settlers brought with them a commitment
to the work ethic already entrenched in industrialized Britain
(Feagin, 1975). Evidence of a widespread belief in the work
ethic is still apparent in opinion surveys today.
The companion belief to work ethic is equality of opportunity. Despite obvious discrimination against minorities and
women, the United States was the first nation to acknowledge that formal equality is a right of all people (Lipset,
1979). Americans have interpreted equality as formal or
political equality rather than equality of results. Its value was
meant to be interpreted in terms of advancement rather than
as an asset in itself.
The third belief that serves as a core value is that of the
strong support to the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system can be seen as the economic side of the individualistic social system. Support for the free enterprise
system has typically been accompanied by a distrust of big
government (Lipset, 1979). The support for capitalism and
free enterprise forms one of the basic elements of the
American political culture.
Core beliefs are not uniformly distributed within the public or in the ideals of politicians or superintendents. To the
extent that differences exist, these beliefs can account for
variations in policy preferences, political evaluations, and
candidate preference (Feldman, 1988). Take for example the
belief in equal opportunity for all. To one legislator that may
be interpreted as the need to propose policy language that has
very little restrictions on government interference, while
another legislator may interpret equal opportunity for all to
include nondiscriminatory language in any proposed
legislation.