Ideology and political beliefs-research.pdf

8/10/2019 Ideology and political beliefs-research.pdf

1/55

This is a report of a pilot study conducted by Zach Schwarzbaum, with the assistance

of Marissa Young and Daniella Greenbaum.

The study is a project of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) and was

conceived and supervised by Irwin J (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, PhD, director of the JCPA

Israel-Arab studies program.

Our study looked at the function of ideology and its relationship to the particular

political positions or stances taken by people. The results of this pilot exploration

have implications for how public diplomacy messaging regarding political issues are

presented. We hope the data obtained will assist us in formulating guidelines for

future studies on the relevance and effectiveness of public diplomacy.

Since the function of public diplomacy is to persuade people to believe or accept aparticular position or interpretation of a political stance, understanding how attitudes

towards forming political opinions are created would be of interest.

In Israeli public diplomacy, many organizations, including many non-governmental

advocacy groups, present material whose goal it is to change or affect public

opinion. Our results speak to these efforts.


2/55

Our general findings and results are noted above. While further research and data is

needed, our results suggest that public diplomacy efforts that are limited to

presenting facts will have little impact on those whose ideology would interpret

those facts in a specific manner, usually different from what the public diplomacy

objective was.


3/55

Any political position is actually a result of an attitude which would be consistent

with a worldview.

Attitude formation is a result of many different factors . A political position or stance

would be no different than any other area where an opinion matters. Where people

have an opinion, this reflects the attitude they have on that particular subject.

We are interested in looking at factors which affect these attitudes. If these attitudes

can be modified, we would like to know how.

Our pilot is meant to provide us with insight into this subject area and to provide data

which can guide us in developing procedures and protocols for further research.


4/55

Ideology can be thought of as the engine for attitude, the motor that guides how one

will think, how one will look at things and how one will come down on a particular

side of an issue.

Attitudes and opinions, thus, are usually consistent, and predictable, once ones

ideology is known. Moreover, ideology is an important factor in self-identity and as

such is a strong factor in ones personality and self-image.

The link between ideology and political belief is somewhat predictable. Most people

would predict, e.g., that a liberal democrat would be for strict gun control or that a

conservative republican would be pro-life.


5/55

There are many examples of how ideology influences and affects an opinion. Even

when certain facts are generally agreed on, the ultimate expression and application

of that fact will depend on the worldview (ideology) one has.

Most Americans would accept the validity of the constitution, but how the specifics

are interpreted is determined by ones ideology. Hence, we have liberal judges and

conservative judges, both of whom accept the constitution, but differ on what it

means in specific circumstances.

How will opposing ideologies influence the perception of other politically related

issues?


6/55

The challenge, somewhat unrecognized and/or ignored by advocacy groups, is that

persuading or convincing people to think in a particular way is not simply a matter of

presenting the facts or the truth.

It is important to realize that people will see things according to their personal

worldview and not according to the perspective that any particular advocate or

public diplomacy spokesperson has.

When public diplomacy spokespeople fail to take this axiom into consideration, their

efforts are for naught.


7/55

Consequently, when developing approaches to explain particular political or strategic

issues, so long as the explanation is grounded in a framework that is alien or

irrelevant to the observer, it will be largely ineffective.

Vegetarians who oppose the eating of animals, for example, will not be swayed by

any evidence that shows the health benefits of animal-based protein. Similarly, those

that believe that global warming advocates are strictly anti-capitalist activists will

not be convinced by any amount of evidence that climate change is indeed a man-

made problem.

Focusing on facts in public diplomacy may thus be less than relevant. Similarly,

focusing on legal and technical arguments that are divorced from what others may

see as moral or ethical concerns will not be effective.


8/55

We wanted to see how people generally identified as ideological would view

certain issues.

We also wanted to find out if there was any way to move these people off of their

assumed political positions by presenting information in a particular manner.

We did this by looking at certain politically related beliefs and seeing how people

interpret the message.


9/55

When it comes to public diplomacy, messages are often produced by

spokespersons.

In many cases, however, these messages simply repeat the stated positions of the

government the spokesperson represents and presents the information in a manner

that would be appropriate perhaps for domestic consumption or for people that

agree, but not for foreign consumption or people who either do not agree or who do

not have enough information with which to make a reasoned judgment.

By assuming that people being targeted by public diplomacy all have the same values

and attitudes, messages often miss the target and remain ineffective.


10/55

We were particularly interested in the academic population, often described as

more left leaning than the general population.

It is this population that will arguably produce future political and business leaders

and opinion elites.

Our goal was to determine if there are specific ideological undercurrents to their

thinking and if it would be possible to modify their political positions based on

ideological presentations.


11/55

We randomly approached individuals in the area of the campuses of New York

University (NYU) and Columbia University in New York.

These are both prestigious institutions with academic populations that would be

typical of the sample we would like to study.


12/55

As noted above, the overwhelming majority of our sample was left-liberal in their

self-declared political orientation.

We had 72 subjects as interviewees, 36 male and 36 female.

Most stated they were American (58) and most (45) were Caucasian.


13/55

Our study consisted of 70+ individuals, all young academics, who comprised a

convenience sample.

This group represents the population type that represents the swing vote group

that provided a Democrat presidential victory in the last 2 USA elections.

It also represents the population that, based on previous data from other studies,

shows weaker pro-Israel attitudes than other populations in the USA.


14/55

We chose six rather neutral statements that represent a consensus that most

people could agree upon. We wanted to see how our sample would interpret these

statements. Here are the six statements:

The United States is a multi-ethnic democracy where every person has an equal

vote.

Everyone is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

A "country" consists of a citizenry, a government and recognized boundaries.

Many countries have minority groups living as full citizens.

The international community works through a system of laws, treaties and

obligations.

Disputes between countries are best settled through negotiations.


15/55

We presented these statements to our population and then presented them with a

choice of two possible responsesone would be considered a more liberal or left-

leaning response while the other would be considered a more conservative or

right-leaning response.


16/55

By adding a follow-up statement, we wanted to see if this would influence how the

individual would view the statement or perhaps affect how the interpretation would

be made.

The follow-up statement reflected a particular interpretation of the original

statement. We sought to see if this would influence how our sample would actually

view the statement.

For example, if the lead statement was:

Apples are fruits that are good for you

We could present 2 follow-up statementseach to a different group of subjects, like

this:

1. Having apples as part of your diet is good2. You need to be careful to balance your diet with more than apples

Would the follow-up statements color the choice to be made from:

A. You should always have an apple when you get the chance

B. You should eat apples only if you havent eaten similar fruit that day


17/55

The other reason for presenting follow-up statements was to replicate a real-life

situation where any particular message if often accompanied by a variety of other

messages, all of which can influence the observer in different ways.

Since people hear different political messages on a regular basis, we wished to

present our political messages in a similar fashion, so as to have some of our sample

hear a liberal message, other a conservative message and yet others no particular

interpretation.

We would then combine the data and analyze the results.


18/55

The other purpose was, as noted earlier, to see if by presenting a priming

statement we could manipulate the subject into looking at the lead statement

differently.

If we bias the presentation this way, would the subject look at things differentlyor

would ones basic ideology still maintain control over the choices to be made?


19/55

Each individual we surveyed was asked if they would spend a few minutes answering

some questions as part of a political science project.

They were shown the test statement, (some with a follow-up statement) and then

asked to make one of two choices as a response. One could be considered a more

liberal response while the other would be considered a more conservative

response.

Each response included key phrases that used words that are linked to particular

ideas and could be used in an ideological presentation. For example, human rights

would be one such phrase associated with more liberal or left-leaning thinking, while

security would be one associated with more conservative or right-leaning thinking.


20/55

What follows are the lead statement, followed by the liberal and conservative

versions of the follow-up statements, followed by the choices (liberal or conservative)

we asked the subjects to make in response to the statements presented.


21/55

Statement # 1:

The above statement is a generally agreed upon and neutral political statement

which both left and right can agree upon.

We now wished to look at the manner in which ideology would affect the

interpretation of this statement.


22/55

The conservative interpretation:

Conservatives may feel that democracy does allow for divisions along ethnic lines,

divisions which would take into consideration cultural realities as well as majority

rights. Such a view would allow for a majority ethnic democracy while providing

minority rights for any other ethnic groups.


23/55

On the other hand, a more liberal interpretation would be to allow any citizen or

resident the same rights as any one else.

In Israeli terms, the choices would be between one person, one vote which could

potentially compromise a Jewish majority, or a recognition that alternative

arrangements could be made for minority ethnic groups while maintaining

democratic principles.


24/55

The choices above reflect either a more liberal or left-leaning response or a more

conservative or right-leaning response.

In Israeli terms, the second choice (B) would affirm the legitimacy of a clearly

Jewish state as opposed to a state of all its citizens that would include members

of other ethnic groups.

Key phrases: multi-ethnic, democracies, ethnic divisions, separate sovereign


25/55

Statement # 2:

The above statement is a generally agreed upon and neutral political statement


26/55

The left-liberal interpretation:

Human rights is an important liberal value and buzzword, hence its position here

stressing its importance.


27/55

Conservatives would argue that the basic human right would be the right to life,

allowing for actions by a government insuring life that may limit what others would

see as human rights of others.


28/55

The choices above include a more traditional conservative choice that stresses the

use of military force (A) or a more liberal one (B) that holds that human rights

would be the way to insure safety.

Israel often uses the military option to defend itself and is subject to criticism for

actions which have unintended (but predictable) negative consequences for the

Palestinian Arab population.

Key phrases: military, defend, moral, human rights, safety


29/55

Statement # 3:

The above is a generally accepted notion of a countrythis reflects the stated

position of Israel which stresses the need for secure and defensible borders.


30/55

Conservative thinking emphasizes the need for understanding and accepting legal

rights, hence the use of the term international law.

This term (international law) also figures prominently in human rights narratives, and,

as such, may have crossover value (as will be seen later on in our discussion and

findings.)

3


31/55

The left-liberal perspective:

Again, the importance of human rights as a liberal value is presented as the key

factor in securing ones citizenry.

3


32/55

The first choice (A) emphasizes the conservative stress of safety and security, while

choice (B) focuses on the need for peace and respect, notions associated with more

liberal thinking.

Israels emphasis of secure and defensible borders as a prerequisite for peace is

emphasized in choice (A) while the more liberal approach of establishing peace as the

means to insure security is stressed in choice (B).

Key phrases: safety, hostile, peace, good will, security

3


33/55

Statement # 4:

While most people can agree with the above statement, there may be differences

between right and left as to how one would interpret application of the systems

described.

3


34/55

The UN is seen as a legitimate body in liberal circles, hence it use here in this liberal

argument.

3


35/55

The conservative message focuses on the totalitarian and non-democratic nature of

many of the members of the UN, which in liberal circles, is not always perceived in

such terms.

3


36/55

Choice (A) emphasizes the integrity of the UN as a representative body and the

liberal approach, especially in more progressive circles, that the UN reflects

international consensus. Choice (B) looks at the right to challenge even a majority

opinion, which in the case of the UN, would be a common conservative message

and one that is especially relevant to Israel and Israels position within the UN.

Key phrases: international, disagree, UN

3


37/55

Statement # 5:

This statement is a neutral statement of fact that is open to a variety of

interpretations. Israels significant minority of non-Jews makes this statement

relevant for Israeli public diplomacy.

3


38/55

Consistent with more conservative approach, this statement emphasizes more legal

aspects of an argument and the feeling that once legal equality is granted, a

country has fulfilled its obligations.

3


39/55

Consistent with more liberal and progressive ideas, the less formal and less legalistic

approach emphasizing social integration, notwithstanding any legal status, is stressed.

3


40/55

Choice (A) reflects the conservative and traditional approach of looking at legalistic

arguments, while choice (B) looks at the more social, human and less legal and

formal approach. Israels formal and legal granting of equality to non-Jewish citizens is

often used as a talking point in public diplomacy.

Key phrases: equal rights, minority, person-person, law

4


41/55

Statement # 6:

While perhaps less neutral than other statements, the sentiment of the above

statement is often the conventional wisdom that most political perspectives agree

with publicly.

4


42/55

Consistent with a liberal perspective, this statement supports a more conciliatory

approach during negotiations, one that minimizes the possibility of upsetting the

party being negotiated with. It also reflects the argument that settlement

construction would be a obstacle to negotiations.

4


43/55

Consistent with a legalistic, formal approach, the above sentiment is more tough-

minded and would be more attractive to individuals whose ideology can be

considered more conservative. It reflects the Israeli argument that settlement

construction is not prohibited under the Oslo agreements and thus can be

undertaken at any time by Israel.

4


44/55

Choice (A) reflects a more liberal approach that frowns upon actions which can be

considered morally questionable, notwithstanding their legal status. Choice (B) would

be the more conservative approach which simply reflects legal rights and does not

speak to any possible ethical or moral difficulty.

As noted earlier, these choices would be relevant to the impression that Israel

engages in settlement construction and/or expansion during negotiations or peace

process.

4


45/55

Our first step in analysis was to tabulate the number of liberal versus the number of

conservative choices.

We then looked to see if having intervening priming statements that reflected

either liberal or more conservative sentiments affected these choices.

4


46/55

Combining all the data (of all versions and all primed statements) we see that there is

a significant gap between liberal and conservative choices to the statements

presented, reflecting an overwhelming liberal-left ideology in the population

sampled.

This difference reaches statistical significance, as measured by a chi-square analysis of

all comparisons (probability


47/55

As we can see from the above graph, the data shows that when statements are

presented without any intervening (primed) sentiments, they maintain the significant

difference seen in the previous slide.

While some pairs are closer than others, all can be said to reflect statistically

significant (chi-square values) differences at no less than a p


48/55

Our data shows one finding of statistical significance, although its meaning is limited.

As seen above, when presenting a liberal argument, the gaps between choosing

responses which reflect left versus right ideology remains intact.

We did, however, find one comparison that failed to show significance, although its

practical or clinical significance is minimal.

Statement # 6 shows a narrow gap between the 2 choicesa gap that does not , as

opposed to all other comparisons, show statistical significance. While, on the surface,

this would appear to be meaningful, the shift from its baseline (see previous slides)

level and the impact of any primed statement is thus NOT significant.

It is unclear, however, if the failure to show an ideological difference between the

choices here is meaningful or simply a statistical anomaly.

4


49/55

As with all the other data, presenting a conservative-laden statement as an

intervening prime had no significant effect on the gap between right and left

responses.

4


50/55

The bar graph above presents a dramatic image of the left-right gap in the population

we tested. On all statements presented, left choices were chosen overwhelmingly

over right choices.

5


51/55

What is important is a measure of the shift in the relative percentage of liberal or

conservative responses following the presentation of a primed statement.

In our study, we found one such shift which showed statistical significance.

In comparisons made, the percentage of liberal responses shifted from 96% in the

baseline (no intervening statements) group to about 68% in the group that received a

conservative prime. While the liberal prime also reduced the percentage of liberal

responses, this difference did not reach statistical significance (see below) .

A "country" consists of a citizenry, a government and recognized boundaries.

Conservative prime

Borders of an established country are always to be respected according to

international law.

Liberal primeAny country that engages in human rights abuses within its borders forfeits the right

to secure borders and immunity from attack.

A. A country is always entitled to borders that insure safety from attack or threat from

potentially hostile neighbors. (conservative choice)

B. Establishing peace and demonstrating good will and respect to neighboring

countries rights is the best way to insure security on one's borders. (liberal choice)

5


52/55

The above is the same graph as in the previous slide, but shows the shift (also

statistically significant (probability


53/55

Consistent with other studies, we saw that ones ideology is paramount in

determining political belief.

We also found that academics, consistent with conventional wisdom, hold

predominant left-liberal beliefs.

5


54/55

We further found that creating effective arguments that are inconsistent with ones

ideology is difficult. Our sample of academics showed that they are resistant to

changing their attitudinal slant even if suggestions to the contrary are presented in

talking point format.

While modifying ones choices seems not to have been successful on the basis of

priming certain intervening statements, we did see one possible opening by using

an argument which leans conservative but uses a liberal term.

In the one statistically significant finding we had, we saw the dual nature of the term

international law. The term is often associated with a human rights and left

narrative, and in the Israel-Palestinian dynamic is often used to illustrate violations

committed by Israel (e.g., settlement building.) However, the legal aspect of the

term also allows for interpretations which can support more conservative thinking(e.g., right to self-defense.)

So while ideology may indeed be resistant to attitudinal challenge, it is also possible

that utilizing ideologically compatible terminology to illustrate an alternative to

conventional ideological attitude may be a mechanism that would allow information

to be conveyed more effectively.

5


55/55

The failure to understand and accept the predominant ideology of populations being

targeted is a failure of public diplomacy, including Israeli public diplomacy and NGO

advocacy efforts.

The continued use of inappropriate and ineffective arguments is akin to speaking a

foreign language to people whose ideology would reject such arguments.

Research needs to focus on the dynamic of political thinking and ideology and the

mechanisms by which relevant and effective arguments that speak to the target

audience can be developed. Our finding that ideological consistency is needed to

induce any attitudinal shift would call for further research to investigate how to best

develop mechanisms to meet public diplomacy objectives.

We hope to use the results of this pilot to develop future follow-up studies thatwould test hypotheses we would develop in this area.

Documents

Ideology and political beliefs-research.pdf