The chapter also discussed the theory of "rational ignorance," which states that people don't bother to educate themselves about most issues because they see the benefits of knowledge as not worth the time they would have to spend learning more about the issues.
How might the phenomenon of "rational ignorance" have contributed to Page and Shapiro's finding of stable opinions over time? Using an example from your personal experience, explain how knowledge of an issue can contribute to both opinion change and opinion stability.
Well as the reading states "the findings that overall opinion is usually stable doesn't tell us much about its rationality."
ReplyDeleteI do think though if people are acting irrationally and not becoming educated on issues that this would lead to a stable public opinion because if you don't care about educating yourself your not going to care to keep up with new events and information that would affect a change in your public opinion.
I was irrationally ignorant in the last political election when it came to the 4 measures that would affect laws in Fargo. Instead of educating myself on these issues, I simply asked people with my same political beliefs how to vote on each issue. I didn't find the 4 measures as important to me because I will be graduating in May and no longer living in Fargo so didn't care to read up on issues that wouldn't affect me in the future.
If I would have eduacted myself on these issues it may have lead to an opinion change because I could have made the decision for myself. Since I used others opinions my opinion was very stable and I had no desire to change how I was going to vote.
Through rational ignorance, public opinion could be mostly stable, what Page and Shapiro found, because people only are aware of the broad spectrum on issues, at best. Marx would have probably agreed with me seeing that he believes that it is easier to follow others than have an independent opinion. We are constantly bombarded by the opinion of others that it is pretty easy to believe that public opinion would stay mostly stable. As Marx would say, citizens mimic the opinion of the ruling class, or in today’s society, the most personally believable news outlet.
ReplyDeletePage and Shapiro’s idea about “parallel publics” (pg. 308) lends credence to my thoughts. This idea suggests that members of the same groups will interpret things similarly. Thus, the group of people that watch CNN often would be likely to interpret a ban on same sex marriage as negative. Because these publics stay mostly parallel, their opinion change is not likely to be drastic. Likewise, people that choose to be ignorant, stay ignorant; again, keeping the stability.
Rational ignorance could have contributed to Page and Shapiro’s finding of stable opinions over time because if people aren’t willing to take time to educate themselves about most issues they won’t know about or understand changes that the issues tend to face or both sides of the issue to form a well-rounded opinion. Keeping the same knowledge one had about an issue and not looking deeper into the issue at hand creates a standstill for that person’s opinion.
ReplyDeleteA personal example of opinion change and opinion stability for me would be the issue of healthcare coverage. Throughout high school and my first years of college my opinion was that it shouldn’t be the rest of the populations responsibility to make sure others could afford healthcare coverage. I was covered by my parent’s health insurance and had nothing to worry about. Recently, my dad switched jobs, the new health insurance he receives through his work doesn’t cover me, and I have been forced to find other means of health coverage.
For about a year, I had no coverage at all. I worried about getting seriously ill or getting hurt and what I would have to do if that happened. I am now on a governmental based health coverage program through my state. Since I have gone through this situation, my opinion has changed. I understand what some people go through when it comes to health coverage. My opinion now is that we should be responsible for others health, because health is so important. Because of my experience, my opinion from now on is most likely to remain stable.
I think Page and Shapiro’s findings of public opinion being stable over time are because of rational ignorance. Some people don’t have the time, resources or motivation to truly educate themselves on societal issues. Therefore, it is easier to comply with the majority. If people are complying with the majority than there is no reason the public opinion would vary over time. If you didn’t have an opinion on the issues to begin with your opinion will not change and it will continue to be stable over time.
ReplyDeleteI am not a North Dakota resident so in the past election I did not pay any attention to what the North Dakota issues were because it did not matter to me. I was ignorant on these issues. I complied with the majority because it was easier than learning about issues that are not necessarily important to me. I am graduating in May and may not be in Fargo so my opinion has yet to change. I believe that rational ignorance depends on a person’s external and internal factors, such as their own personal belief system and their environment situations.
I believe that rational ignorance is an ongoing cycle and will never prove Page and Shapiro’s findings wrong. People seldom change their opinion which keeps public opinion stable.
I think that rational ignorance has a little to do with stable opinions because if we’re not motivated to research a topic or simply don’t have the resources/education, I believe we tend to look elsewhere for an answer. We look to our friends, families, and even other polls to observe what others think and I believe this in turn causes us to see numerous sides of an issue. I thought it was interesting when the book mentions “If overall opinion were perfectly stable, that would imply that that people were paying no attention to new events and information that might be expected to change their minds (pg.308).” So maybe because opinion polls have remained stable, this could imply that there are a large amount of people who still don’t follow news events or seek out more information to change their minds.
ReplyDeleteI guess the example that comes to mind is all the debates on the economy. In high school, I could have cared less about the stock markets! It didn’t interest me at all and I had no idea how important it is to understand how the markets work. Now that I’ve had to take numerous courses in Econ, I have a much better understanding of how the markets operate. So in the past election, how a candidate proposed to fix our failing economy was a HUGE deal for me. I also think I will feel this way for years to come.
In Public Opinion, Anthony Downs says that “the tangible benefit of voting is tiny, because each citizen has almost no chance of affecting the election outcome.” Because we rarely see actual reward or change from expressing their opinions to their representatives or through voting, the average American tends to seek out only enough information as needed for the current situation, or for the current decision to be made. Conducting any research is time-consuming for Americans in our increasingly busy environment; therefore, most Americans seek out information from other people (either what they hear from the media or in conversation with others). In fact, Page and Shapiro “observe that various demographic groups usually respond similarly… to changing circumstances,” suggesting that people from the same groups use “common standards of judgment.” This phenomenon illustrates the reason why “rational ignorance” contributes to stability of opinion over time.
ReplyDeleteThere are obviously people who are ultraconservative and ultraliberal who may not follow the general curve of public opinion, but it is the opinion leaders—those who people trust in their local communities for information on key issues—who help to turn public opinion in certain directions. The American public is also generally moderate politically; the extreme views of the strong liberals or conservatives usually are not the majority opinion, as it usually takes extensive research and knowledge to form strong opinions on either side of the spectrum.
One example of how knowledge of an issue can contribute to both opinion change and opinion stability in my life is my internship in the office of a U.S. Senator. Before my internship, I had little knowledge of the salient issues of the time—high oil prices and offshore drilling. My political views are generally conservative, so I kept the general opinion that I thought most conservatives held: that offshore drilling would be a short-term solution to the problem of high oil prices. However, as I gained more and more information from the opinion leaders in the office where I worked, I was able to gain more insight on offshore drilling from a liberal perspective. As I conducted my own research and listened to many different viewpoints, my opinion began to change: offshore drilling is not a short-term solution, it can take up to ten years for any effects on gas prices to be seen after more offshore drilling is allowed.
Since rational ignorance means that many voters will seek out information on candidates and issues, this idea definitely affects Page and Shapiro's findings that public opinion is generally stable.
ReplyDeleteIf a voter holds a certain opinion and never tries to get more informed about the issue, his or her opinion is not likely to change over a long period of time. If this person happens to be in the majority of public opinion, then the majority opinion may not see much change over a period of time as well.
When I was younger, I'd always heard the topic of abortion as discussed by various adults around me. To me, they were very knowledgeable so I took on their opinions on the issue without any questioning. As I grew older and learned more about the topic, I still had the same opinion but for my own particular reasoning. Continuing on, I haven't really attempted to get any more information on the topic because I believe that more information might result in a change of opinion. I don't believe that I'm really ready for that so I tend to avoid most discussions that are related to the topic.
Rational ignorance is due to the fact that most people do not want to invest their time in causes or in issues that do not directly with them. For example: a person that may not support proposition 8 in California is not directly affected by the passing of the bill. That person is unlikely to educate themselves about the positions of the sides arguing for or against proposition 8 because the bill does not directly affect them. Rational ignorance is a term that makes a lot of sense. It really takes something dramatic to change public opinion; war, gas shortage, civil rights, and the list goes on. Smaller issues do not change the general flow of public opinion and that explains aggregate opinion.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge of any subject is important to the opinion formation around that subject. The bailout has been a hot button issue for the several past months. Immediately I supported the bailout because I thought that it would stabilize the economy. After several months of research and listening to financial scholars, my personal opinion has changed. I no longer support the bailout as my knowledge about the subject has increased. Now my opinion is a stable idea and will not change unless something dramatic happens. As my knowledge has increased about the subject, my opinion stability has increased.
Page and Shapiro state that public opinion sometimes moves.” Obviously their thought that opinion is consistent over a period of time is something that I also believe to be true. Public opionion is shaped by values in America that generally are consistent over long periods of time.
Rational ignorance contributes to Page and Shapiro's findings that public opinion remains relatively consistent over time. As the book mentions, people who engage in rational ignorance do so because they see that the time it would take to become informed on an issue would outweigh what they would actually gain from having that knowledge. If a vast amount of the public acts in rational ignorance, you won’t see many changes in public opinion because people generally won’t care enough to educate themselves on the issues. People who engage in rational ignorance will not have the capacity to develop an opinion that differs from the mass public.
ReplyDeleteMy personal experience with this topic comes from a few semesters ago when I was in a women’s studies class. I always thought I had a pretty general grip on past and present women’s issues. However, I never really cared enough to educate myself on these issues. I didn’t see the value of having that knowledge as being worth the time it would take to become educated on those issues. After taking the class, I became educated on issues concerning abortion, equal rights, violence against women, and the portrayal of women in the media. Now that I have that knowledge, some of my opinions have changed and I have become much more concerned with these issues. The way I see it, public opinion on women’s issues are for equality and all of that stuff that really sounds great, but I don’t think the general public is educated enough on these issues to see a change in opinion stability.
Page and Sharpio found that public opinion was stable but it could move for a reason. That reason usually related to new found knowledge most likely stemming from the media. The concept of rational ignorance fits into this nicely.
ReplyDeleteWe know there is knowledge available if we want it but many times we don't seek it out. Instead, the media filters what we learn by what they deem news worthy. If a person believes this concept, it is easy to see that as the media brings new topics to our attention, public opinion can drastically change.
For me, I was highly influenced by this type of learning during the presidential election. I didn't go out and research the candidates but instead, watched the news coverage to learn more. As I collected more information, my opinion gradually changed.
I do not agree with Page and Shapiro's findings that "aggregate public opinion is generally stable" when polled over a period of time (pg. 308). However, I do see the connection between that and rational ignorance. As mentioned in the chapter there could be changes in the opinion which directly relates to rational ignorance because rational ignorance says that there is no real reason to learn something. Unless we are exposed to something subconsciously we do not actively seek out that information.
ReplyDeleteTake for instance the last election. Since I am still a MT resident I vote absentee. However, I am not around to learn a lot about the measures and proposals. Because of my limited knowledge I call my parents and see how they are voting and vote the same way.
Since there is no real benefit to me if I voted a certain way, I did not seek out that information,