Author
William R. Caspary
Bio: William R. Caspary is an academic researcher from Washington University in St. Louis. The author has contributed to research in topics: Public policy & Public opinion. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 102 citations.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an empirical investigation of the evidence for the "mood theory" proposed by Gabriel Almond as one element of his classic study, The American People and Foreign Policy.
Abstract: This paper is concerned with assessing the stability of the American public's attention to foreign affairs, and the relationship of this to public support of international programs and commitments. In particular, the paper presents an empirical investigation of the evidence for the “mood theory” proposed by Gabriel Almond as one element of his classic study, The American People and Foreign Policy.The mood theory contends, first of all, that attention to or interest in foreign policy is generally low and subject to major fluctuations in times of crisis.The characteristic response to questions of foreign policy is one of indifference. A foreign policy crisis, short of the immediate threat of war may transform indifference to vague apprehension, to fatalism, to anger; but the reaction is still a mood.On the basis of this premise about attention, Almond predicts that the public will not provide stable support for international commitments undertaken by the U.S. Government.Because of the superficial character of American attitudes toward world politics … a temporary Russian tactical withdrawal may produce strong tendencies toward demobilization and the reassertion of the primacy of private and domestic values.The acceptance of this view by scholars is evidenced by its presentation in important textbooks and treatises. As far as I have been able to determine it has not been challenged.The empirical investigation in this paper considers evidence on both of these variables—attention=interest, and support for foreign policy commitments.
105 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: The actor-specific focus in international relations (IR) is defined by as discussed by the authors as "the argument that all that occurs between nations and across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in groups".
Abstract: Examining the history, conceptual breadth, and recent trends in the study of foreign policy analysis, it is clear that this subfield provides what may be the best conceptual connection to the empirical ground upon which all international relations (IR) theory is based. Foreign policy analysis is characterized by an actor-specific focus, based upon the argument that all that occurs between nations and across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in groups. FPA offers significant contributions to IR—theoretical, substantive, and methodological—and is situated at the intersection of all social science and policy fields as they relate to international affairs. A renewed emphasis on actor-specific theory will allow IR to more fully reclaim its ability to manifest human agency, with its attendant change, creativity, accountability, and meaning.
491 citations
TL;DR: The authors surveys and assesses theories and research on public opinion and foreign policy and concludes that public opinion has little if any impact on foreign policy, since it is volatile and lacks coherence or structure.
Abstract: This article surveys and assesses theories and research on public opinion and foreign policy. Most of the evidence is drawn from the literature on the United States. Three twentieth-century wars have had a significant impact on theory and scholarship. World War I-the first public relations war-and postwar efforts to create a new international order directed much attention to the nature of public opinion and its impact on foreign affairs, issues on which realists and liberals came to quite different conclusions. The period surrounding World War II coincided with the development of scientific polling. Much of the attention during and immediately after the war focused on the extent to which the public might support or oppose an internationalist American role. Extensive research during the first two decades after World War II yielded a broad agreement (the "Almond-Lippmann consensus") on three propositions about public opinion: (1) it is volatile and thus provides inadequate foundations for stable and effective foreign policies, (2) it lacks coherence or structure, but (3) in the final analysis, it has little if any impact on foreign policy. The Vietnam War and its aftermath stimulated a new
444 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the relationship between media content, public opinion, and foreign policy in the United States and the United Kingdom using a combination of U.S. and U.K. commercial polling data and the American National Election Study.
Abstract: This article examines relationships between media content, public opinion, and foreign policy in the United States and the United Kingdom. The investigation proceeds in two stages. First, an agenda-setting analysis demonstrates a strong connection between the salience of foreign affairs in the media and the salience of foreign affairs for the public. Second, two potential effects of varying issue salience on foreign policymaking are examined:(1) issue priming and (2) policymakers’ reactions to issue salience. Analyses rely on a combination of U.S. and U.K. commercial polling data and the American National Election Study. Results point to the importance of mass media and issue salience in the relationship between public opinion and foreign policy. There is a considerable body of work in the United States on both the relationship between public opinion and foreign policy and on the nature of public opinion on foreign affairs. While early research suggested that the effects of public opinion on foreign policy were slight, recent studies indicate that public opinion often has a measurable impact on U.S. foreign policy (e.g., Hartley and Russett 1992; Hill 1998; Sobel 2001; Wlezien 1996). Similarly, while initial studies indicated that public opinion was volatile and incoherent (Almond 1950; Converse 1964; Miller 1967), work since the 1970s supports the conclusion that public opinion on foreign affairs is often stable, sensibly structured, and rational (Caspary 1970; Mueller 1973; Page and Shapiro 1992; Wittkopf 1990). Although we have a reasonable understanding of the nature of public opinion about foreign affairs, we know much less about the sources of this opinion. Holsti’s (1996) chapter on the “Sources of Foreign Policy Attitudes”—emblematic of the majority of enquiries on the matter—focuses on partisanship, ideology, and demographics. These attributes account for a considerable amount of cross-sectional variance in foreign policy attitudes, but they tell us little about how and why these attitudes might change over time.
311 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the role of foreign affairs in public opinion and voting at that low point of view and find that the public holds reasonably sensible and nuanced views, that these help shape their political behaviors and that these, in turn, help shape and constrain foreign policy making.
Abstract: ▪ Abstract Public opinion is central to representation, democratic accountability, and decision making. Yet, the public was long believed to be relatively uninterested in foreign affairs, absent an immediate threat to safety and welfare. It had become conventional to say that “voting ends at water's edge.” We start the examination of the scholarly understanding of the role of foreign affairs in public opinion and voting at that low point of view. Much subsequent development saw an increasing degree of holding and using of attitudes and beliefs about foreign affairs among the public. Moving in parallel with developments in political psychology, theoretical and methodological advances led to an increasingly widely shared view that the public holds reasonably sensible and nuanced views, that these help shape their political behaviors, and that these, in turn, help shape and constrain foreign policy making.
277 citations
TL;DR: A review of the field of foreign policy analysis can be found in this paper, where the authors examine how foreign policy decisions are made and assume that human beings, acting individually or in collectivities, are the source of much behavior and most change in international politics.
Abstract: The catalytic shock of the end of the Cold War and the apparent inability of international relations (IR) theory to predict this profound change have raised questions about how we should go about understanding the world of today. Our inherited tools and ways of describing the international arena seem not to work as well as they once did. To explain and predict the behavior of the human collectivities comprising nation-states, IR theory requires a theory of human political choice. Within the study of IR, foreign policy analysis (FPA) has begun to develop such a theoretical perspective. From its inception, FPA has involved the examination of how foreign policy decisions are made and has assumed that human beings, acting individually or in collectivities, are the source of much behavior and most change in international politics. This article reviews the field of foreign policy analysis, examining its research core and its evolution to date. The overview also looks forward, pointing to the future, not only of FPA itself, but to the implications that future developments in FPA may have for the study of international relations.
251 citations