Testing a cognitive -interactionist theory of concrete preference in public opinion: The translation axiom.

摘要

This dissertation explores the notion that concrete political preferences are influenced by the interaction of two elements: abstract preferences and empirical descriptions of the situation encountered. That is, in order to have a logical preference about an encountered political situation, a person must desire a certain reality, and also must have some descriptive conception of the actual situation. Neither element should generate a concrete preference on its own; only as it acts upon or is acted upon by the other element should it influence a person's preference regarding a concrete situation or policy.;The relationship between abstract preferences and empirical descriptions of the situation is thus interactive; the effect that one of these factors has upon concrete preferences depends upon the value of the other, and one factor can reverse the direction of effect of the other. I use the term translation to refer to this interaction, because a person's empirical description translates that person's abstract preference into a concrete preference.;The dissertation is divided into two sections, both of which focus on the empirical translation of one type of abstract preference, the moral principle. Part I explores the translation of meritocratic moral principles by empirical descriptions into concrete preferences regarding redistribution of wealth and the welfare state. It shows that many existing studies are flawed in that they fail to consider the moral-empirical interaction. They also have sometimes used questions that assumed the empirical descriptions posited by many adherents of liberal-conservative ideologies. Empirical tests using survey data show mixed results, with some confirmation of the translation axiom.;Part II explores translation in public opinion about foreign affairs, with surveys asking for respondents' moral principles about international relations and their empirical descriptions (factual opinions) about the US-Iraq and Israel-Palestinian conflicts. Again, results are mixed, with some confirmation of the translation axiom. A final chapter covers the accuracy of Americans' empirical descriptions about US foreign policy behaviors, and draws out the implications of the translation notion for that issue.