A Science of Public Opinion Essay

The science of public opinion is in the spotlight nowadays. If there is a science of public opinion, or is it an issue that is still not developed and deserves close attention? There is much questioning concerning this issue among scientists which provokes much debates. One of the founders of the social psychology, Floyd H. Allport, was the first one who focused on the science of public opinion.

His approach was to separate the study of the public opinion into individual terms which would focus on a particular social situation or social actions. Thus, he suggested that it would give a possibility to separate the public opinion as an individual field of study from the collection of different individual opinions.

Consequently, his approach suggested a new vision of the nature and content of the public opinion and made a basis for the science of public opinion in our times. However, this field is not developed completely, and there are no agreements between different scientists who are engaged in the problem, Allport made it possible to achieve this goal.

In this paper, we are going to analyze Allport’s work Towards a Science of Public Opinion and discuss the question of the science of public opinion. In addition, we will try to provide several decisions that would encourage the science of public opinion.

The fists limitation to the study of the public opinion is that there is no a single definition to the term itself. Slavko Splichal provides in his book Public opinion: developments and controversies in the twentieth century (1999) that “public opinion, according to Noelle-Neuman, is the public expression of opinion or only the willingness to speak out” (174).

However, different scientists have their own opinions based on different approaches. This does not allow creating a common strategy to the study of the public opinion. The only common thing that unites different approaches is the point of view that public opinion consists of the collection of personal opinions on a particular issue.

In addition, it should be mentioned that public opinion influences political processes, government policies, and behavior (individual or group one). These days, the term “public opinion” appears in the media with rising frequency, and, it is generally accepted that it plays a great role in different areas. Thus, it is no wonder that today this issue is under consideration of sociologists, historians and social psychologists.

Moreover, political theorists also paid great attention to the issue. It would be reasonable to suggest that the difference in definitions of the “public opinion” and diversity of the approaches on the science of public opinion lies in the fact that there are different interests concerning this question, as diverse sciences focus on different categories of the public opinion.

In this light, many scientists agree that in order to proceed in the study of the public opinion, and “attempting to answer these questions brings us back to the need for more dynamic theories of public opinion” (Weisberg 1996, 237).

Floyd H. Allport was the first one who emphasized that we should move towards a science of public opinion. He suggested that “the reference to the public opinion are so widespread in political and social studies, that their reexamination is necessary as a first step in formulating a workable, scientific approach” (Allport 1937, 7).

Indeed, it was a significant contribution to the study of the public opinion and encouraged many scientists to give a closer look to this issue. Allport’s suggestion was to apply a multi-individual approach to the analysis of the situation in the whole, as well as to the analysis of the relations among various individual opinions related to this situation.

First of all, the author suggests that there should be a common definition to the term “public opinion” that would allow different scientists working in the same direction. Focusing on the definition of the “public opinion”, he suggests different approaches to the understanding of the term “public”. He provides the idea that there are two meanings of the term “public opinion”.

On the one hand, “public” can be “defined geographically” (Allport 1937, 8). Thus, “public” is a collection of individual inhabiting definite territories. However, it does not guarantee that those people will be united by one common opinion, thus, “we cannot speak of the opinion of this public, because it includes too many alignments of opinion” (Allport 1937, 8).

According to the second approach, “public” can be defined as the unity of individuals united by one idea or interest. Thus, the definition of the public, as well as the public opinion, becomes circular, as the collection of people united by one opinion will always contact with the unities with other opinions.

Allport (1937) claims that our urban population has a very complex organization, consequently diverse face-to-face contacts contribute to development of different types of grouping. As a result, it is quite difficult to identify the level of a real integrative effect on the development of the individual opinions. (12).

At any rate, he suggests that they will influence each other and some of these units can be suppressed by the other. This tendency should be taken into consideration when studying public opinion.

Another important issue in the study of the public opinion is its content

“Public opinion in this sense is regarded as a new product emerging from integrated discussion in a group, a product of concrete individual thinking which is different both from an average or consensus of views and from the opinion of any particular individual” (Allport 1937, 10).

In this light, if “public opinion” is a product of “group interaction” there should be worked out a methodology that would allow identify, describe and test the emergence of it. Until now, there is no such a technology (or methodology). Furthermore, public opinion is often confused with the representation of the opinion by the media which is associated with the journalistic fallacy.

Thus, the information which is often regarded as “public opinion” often presents an “editorial clipping from different sections of the country” (Allport 1937, 12). Thus, due to the lack of the statistical foundation, it is almost impossible to identify real “lay of attitudes in population”.

Analyzing the information mentioned above, we can come to a conclusion that the science of public opinion is not developed enough due to the lack of statistic foundation and complete methods that would allow identify and provide an in-depth understanding of the public opinion. However, with grows of the interest towards this issue, some attempts have been done in this direction.

For example, Slavko Splich (1999) writes that “the science of public opinion was interested in the end result (i.e., individual opinions) rather than the actual social processes from which public opinion stems” (234).

However, in order to proceed in the study of the public opinion, we should focus on the underlying condition of the appearance of the public opinion. In this regard, the observation made by the Allport (1937) acquires a very important sence:

“Granting the indices of collective alignments of “public opinion” in a social field could be developed, there is still good reason for us to continue our emphasis upon measurement at the more elementary level, namely the behaviors of individuals”. (22)

This point of view is supported by the study provided by Herbert F. Weisberg. He supported the idea that there are no “theories that link public opinion to mass political behavior, elite behavior, and to public policy” (Weisberg 1986, 283). These elements are extremely important for the understanding and explaining the elementsof the public opinion and its influence on the political processes.

Thus, we cannot say that nothing was done in the science of public opinion. Thought this issue is seeks closer attention, a considerable basis for the further research have already been laid. In order to achieve success in the development of this important study, scientists should work out new strategies and approaches to the issue.

Allport’s efforts in methodology can be very helpful in this regard, as they cast light on such important issues as the nature of public opinion, its content and definition. These theories can be applied to the field studies, experimentations, and different observations.

So, the science of public opinion deserves close attention of scientists engaged in study of public behavior and social processes. These days, the science of public opinion is not fully developed, but there is a number of works that can be used as basis and contribute to the promotion of this field of study.

List of References

Allport, Floyd H. 1937. “Toward a science of public opinion.” Public Opinion Quarterly 1: 7-23.

Splich, Slavko. 1999. Public opinion: developments and controversies in the twentieth century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Weisberg, Herbert F. 1986. Political science: the science of politics. New York: Algora Publishing.