The Role of Issue Salience on Lawmakers Utilization of Public Opinion By Julie Bissinger COM 370 Media and Public

c Opinion Senior Fellows Honors Program May 11, 2011

2 Abstract Federal lawmakers use of public opinion during the policymaking process is a highly contested issue. After consulting previously published research on public opinions role in policymaking, I found that an issues salience among the public determines whether or not politicians choose to consult public opinion. Policymakers accept public opinion more often on issues of greater salience than on issues of lesser salience because the public is assumed to form more meaningful opinions on higher salient issues. This paper considers the effect issue salience among the public has on policymakers use of public opinion. Introduction Because the public provides elected officials with the opportunity to govern, it would make sense that those officials would consult public opinion when forming policy. A variety of studies point to the fact that public opinion greatly contributes to the federal policymaking process. In fact, studies show public opinion influences policy approximately 75 percent of the time opinions effects are measured (Burstein, 2003). To reach such a conclusion, Burstein (2003) analyzed government responsiveness on a variety of issues, including social welfare, taxes, and national defense, among others. He measured government action on each issue over different time periods, starting with the years prior to 1960 and going up to the 1990s. The study revealed valuable information on the substantial effect public opinion exerts on policy. We cannot ignore public opinions impact, especially when policy patterns often correspond with those of public opinion. For example, when the publics policy preferences shift, trends in federal policy tend to follow suit (Page & Shapiro, 1983). This becomes even more evident when the change in public opinion sustains itself over a period of time. Page and Shapiro (1983) measured 357 instances of change in policy and change in public opinion

3 between 1935 and 1979. To effectively gauge the true impact changes in opinion had on policy formation, Page and Shapiro applied a one-year lag to each issue. They measured policy change from the time the first opinion survey was distributed and compared the results to another opinion measurement given one year later. When policymakers have more time to react to changes in opinion, Page and Shapiro (1983) found higher frequencies of positive correlations between policy and opinion. This conclusion clearly demonstrates public opinions unmistakable effect on lawmakers and policy. Having established the importance of public opinion on policy in a broad sense, I now seek to narrow my focus to the aspect that most affects elected officials use of public opinion: issue salience. Although public opinion substantially influences the federal lawmaking process, issue salience most significantly contributes to the extent of which lawmakers consult and utilize public opinion. As a policy issue becomes increasingly prevalent among the public, lawmakers show more inclination to reference public opinion on such an issue. In contrast, officials tend to formulate policy for lower salient issues without utilizing public opinion. Throughout the remainder of this paper, I will offer evidence in support of my conclusion from previously published research studies and from my own investigations. I seek to explain the overall effect issue salience among the public has on lawmakers use of public opinion. Highly Salient Issues Federal lawmakers assume that the public is most knowledgeable about highly salient issues; as a result, more weight is given to public opinion regarding such issues. Information about these issues tends to pervade media outlets and social conversations, oftentimes inadvertently causing the public to form an opinion on the issues at hand. Given that the public can form the soundest opinions on highly salient issues, lawmakers take public opinion into

4 greater account when forming policy on such topics. As certain policy issues increase in saliency, a stronger relationship regarding lawmakers acceptance of public opinion exists (Burstein, 2003). Highly salient issues have a substantial effect on policymakers use of public opinion. By measuring the impact of public opinion on policy when issue salience is taken into account, Burstein (2003) found public opinion has a basic effect on policy 100 percent of the time. Public opinion both affects and is of considerable importance towards policymaking decisions approximately 64 percent of the time; higher salient issues fall into this category (Burstein, 2003). This data presents us with statistically significant information that sheds light on the heavy influence issue salience has over lawmakers acceptance of public opinion. Lawmakers have been trying to perfect the art of collecting public opinion poll data for decades, as exemplified by former President Richard Nixon. During his presidency, Nixon conducted extensive polling to gather data on public opinion, especially regarding highly salient policy items. Nixons polling efforts clearly depict how he consulted public opinion for policy purposes. Rather than analyzing the overall effects of Nixons general polling techniques, I will only focus on how he addressed public opinion in relation to highly salient issues. As a result of his polling, Nixon proved to be most responsive to public opinion for policy issues that the public found most important and most salient. Nixon qualified as a splitter in this case, meaning he poured a substantial amount of resources into collecting data on specific policies that the public considered most important (Druckman & Jacobs, 2006). He acted as a splitter by having polltakers answer open-ended questions that asked them to identify the single most important issue affecting the country. Once the White House collected policy opinion data on the issues that the public ranked as most vital and salient, Nixon seemed

5 more likely to consult public opinion when forming policy (Druckman & Jacobs, 2006). The opposite occurred for issues that the public did not cite as highly salient and of great interest. Nixons use of public opinion data in relation to highly salient issues supports my central argument; however, I would like to point out several problems with the former presidents polling methods. First, Nixon did not hire a third party polling organization to formulate the polls. The White House developed the polls in their entirety. Second, because Nixon had total control over the polls, he could have inappropriately framed the poll questions. To ensure he received poll data that would most benefit his agenda, Nixon could have used strategic word choices and sentence structures within the poll questions. Lastly, Nixon could have used the polls solely for political reasons. Instead of acting in the best interest of Americans, Nixon acted in his own self-interest by appealing directly only to the issues that his constituents identified as most important. Interestingly, Druckman and Jacobs (2006) noted in a footnote that Nixon often did not make a public statement after receiving poll data about specific policy issues. Did this occur because public opinion did not agree with his policy stances? I could not find information to answer this question, or, for that matter, other questions that have arisen from his decision to not address the public after receiving poll data. Despite the problematic characteristics of his polling techniques, Nixons policy actions relating to issues that the public deemed as most important and most salient demonstrate that issue saliency truly does have an effect on how lawmakers approach policy. I agree with policymakers logic in applying the most weight to public opinion on highly salient issues. The public should have a say in the handling of major issues that face our country, especially if those issues become intermingled within the publics everyday life. The public can

6 develop the most informed opinions on highly salient issues due to the medias excessive coverage and analysis. Democracy and open government is reinforced through lawmakers utilization of public opinion, even if opinions use is limited to that of highly salient issues. Because policymakers are most responsive to highly salient issues when forming policy, I think it is necessary to determine how an issue increases in saliency. Does the media decide an issues saliency? What are the roles of political elites and special interest groups in determining an issues salience? The media undoubtedly contributes to mainstreaming policy issues. Agenda setting and framing by the media appears to most influence an issues saliency among the public. When news coverage focuses more on a specific issue, the public is more likely to cite that issue as the most important concern facing the nation (Jasperson et al, 1998). To go forth with its agenda, the media invite specific political elites and leaders of special interest groups to comment on relevant issues like national security and the economy. This increases the coverage of such issues and causes an increase in saliency among the public. Finally, I would like to address a polling issue that several counter arguments cite as faulty in determining how officials utilize public opinion on highly salient issues. Sampling bias is said to falsely inflate estimates of public opinions impact on policy. Public opinion polls only focus on issues the public finds important, and the government is most likely to acknowledge the publics desires on such issues regardless of poll data (Burstein, 2006). Therefore, sampling bias occurs because the public is asked only about issues already salient and not about lesser known issues. Even though Burstein (2006) offers a compelling argument about sampling bias, I do not believe lawmakers act in a flawed way when referencing public opinion. Limiting public opinion influence to highly salient issues allows lawmakers to avoid drowning themselves in poll

7 data. Highly salient issues most affect the public because of their presence in everyday life. These are issues that the public is most likely to have opinions about. Asking questions about lower salient issues would not yield helpful results for a number of reasons. For example, public opinion regarding lower salient issues has the possibility to be more erratic due to the limited availability of information regarding such issues. Many people may not even hold an opinion on lower salient issues. In the next section of my paper, I will discuss how policymakers address public opinion in relation to lower salient issues. Just as officials actively refer to public opinion for highly salient issues, the reverse occurs for matters of lower salience. Issues of Lower Salience Issues of decreased salience tend to have the opposite effect on lawmakers use of public opinion when forming policy. Even for the most salient issues, government leaders recognize that all citizens are not completely aware of every issue facing our country. This causes public opinion to have minimal influence over less salient issues. Page and Shapiro (1983) acknowledged that more specific and detailed matters are often less visible to the public, resulting in less public opinion and voice. Lower salient issues do not allow the public, as a whole, to form meaningful opinions. A small minority of the public may develop an opinion on lower salient issues; however, the number would not be large enough to merit total credibility. The media does not bombard the public with information on less-salient issues. If the public doesnt actively seek out such issues, then limited informed opinions on those issues will exist. I believe that the public may have an increased chance of becoming misinformed about lesser salient issues, leading to faulty conclusions, due to insufficient amounts of available information.

8 The governments more stringent control over lower salient issues does not harm the public or foster an undemocratic environment. I do not think policymakers should feel compelled to succumb to public opinion when the public has limited knowledge and exposure to certain topics. Oftentimes, officials make key decisions on policy items irrelevant to the public. These decisions keep our government and society afloat and do not negatively affect the public. For example, matters involving complex national security provisions require expert knowledge that the majority of the public does not possess. When addressing issues of lower salience, officials utilize their individual perceived assumptions of public opinion to make policy decisions. Candidates who win elections believe they share similar policy beliefs with their constituents (Erikson, 1978). If the elected officials constituency did not agree with their policy stances, then they would not have been victorious in the election. This sets the stage for lawmakers to act in accordance with what they believe the majority opinion is in their respective constituencies. For instance, representatives elected from the most liberal districts tend to perceive their districts as relatively liberal (Erikson, 1978). As a result, these officials are more likely to support liberal policy on lower salient issues without consulting their districts opinion. Even though officials must act on lower salient issues in more closed settings, assuming the public opinion of ones individual constituency may present several problems. I feel it is important to highlight a few difficulties that result from making policy decisions based on assumptions. I believe split districts and swing states pose the greatest problems for officials when assuming the public opinion of their specific electorates. Public opinion among such districts and states varies widely. Although a liberal candidate may have won the majority of votes, liberal ideologies may not constitute the majority opinion of the district or state.

9 The possibility of an officials overestimation of public opinion can also occur. Miller and Stokes (1963) found that congressmen tend to misjudge their visibility to the public, causing difficulties in forming correct judgments of their constituencys opinion. Unpopularity among constituencies may result if it becomes known that lawmakers positions on issues do not match up with those of the district. Another problem may arise when the public becomes more knowledgeable about specific lower salient issues. These policy issues do not always remain under the radar. Once the matter becomes more mainstream, and the public begins forming opinions, lawmakers initial stances on the policy issue usually also become public. If the officials standpoint on the issue conflicts with that of their constituency, the lawmaker may receive major backlash. An elected officials party affiliation also contributes to the stances they advocate for on lower salient policy issues. Many pieces of legislation pass due to party line votes, with all Republicans voting one way and all Democrats voting the other. Lawmakers want to vote through policy that will inevitably advance their partys agenda. Although these voting patterns are politically motivated, I would like to note that public opinion is not totally silenced through this course of action. Party affiliation constitutes the main reason people vote for certain candidates in elections. In 1958, only one out of twenty votes was cast by people without party loyalty, and only one in ten people who maintained party loyalty voted against their party (Miller & Stokes, 1963). Because voters elect officials via party affiliation, it makes sense to conclude that voters agree with the candidates policy stances as defined by their political party membership. Constituencies must, in some measure, take the candidates policy views into account when deciding on a representative, senator, or president (Miller & Stokes, 1963). Once elected, the

10 officials then act in accordance with their parties policy standpoints, ultimately representing the majority of their constituency. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think government officials are doing a disservice to the public by not actively pursuing opinion on lower salient issues. The public votes specific candidates into office for a reason and expects those candidates to represent their district in good faith. Voters party identification reflects their opinions on the most pressing issues. Oftentimes, voters are not aware of the smaller issues that go on within the walls of Congress and the White House. It is the lawmakers responsibility to acknowledge their voting base and make decisions that they deem are in their districts best interest. Evidence of party influence over congressional policymaking is present throughout the majority of our countrys history, especially towards lower salient issues. Groseclose and Snyder (2000) found convincing evidence showing that in virtually every congress, party affiliation had a large influence on officials voting decisions. Groseclose and Snyder (2000) analyzed roll call votes that occurred during the 42nd through 105th Congresses and measured the influence party loyalty had on representatives and senators voting behaviors. Party membership notably affected the way congressional members voted on lower salient issues. Party influence appears much more frequently on certain types of procedural votes, such as rules on bills, motions to end debate, and motions to recommit, than on amendments and final passage of bills, which are the more mainstream aspects of the policymaking process (Groseclose & Snyder, 2000). Conclusion Overall, my research reinforces public opinions sizeable impact on our countrys policymakers. By examining lawmakers utilization of public opinion for highly salient and

11 lower salient issues, a strong relationship exists between officials utilization of opinion and issue saliency. In sum, the public can expect the government to be most responsive to their opinions on the most pressing of issues. This puts more responsibility on the public to remain informed and to develop meaningful opinions on salient matters. When casting votes during an election, the public should pay close attention to the political party, policy stances, and personal traits of the candidates running for office. Elected officials do not frequently consult public opinion on lower salient issues, oftentimes deciding on policy without any public input. Policymakers political party affiliation, policy stances, and personal characteristics play major roles in these types of policy decisions. Research that highlights how lawmakers approach and make use of public opinion is important for a society based on democratic principles. An open government requires input from its citizens. Sure, lawmakers must continue to decide on policy without consulting the public, especially on lower salient matters; however, the public should never feel as though the government does not value its citizens input on substantial issues that face our country. On the most important and salient issues, the publics voice does not go unheard. Thus, the public should take some comfort knowing that their opinions both matter to government officials and critically influence subsequent policy decisions.

12 References Burstein, P. (2006). Why Estimates of the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy are Too High: Empirical and Theoretical Implications. Social Forces, 84 (4), 2273-2289. Retrieved from http://socialforces.unc.edu/ Burstein, P. (2003). The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 29-40. Retrieved from http://prq.sagepub.com/ Clinton, J. (2006). Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House. The Journal of Politics 68 (2), 397-409. Retrieved from http://www.journalofpolitics.org/ Druckman, J. N., & Jacobs, L. R. (2006). Lumpers and splitters: The public opinion information that politicians collect and use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70 (4), 452476. Erikson, R. S. (1978). Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data. American Journal of Political Science, 22 (3), 511-535. Retrieved from http://www.ajps.org/ Groseclose, T., & Snyder, J. M. (2000). Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 44 (2), 193-211. Retrieved from http://www.ajps.org/ Herbst, S. (1993). Congressmen, Journalists, and Opinion Assessment, 1930-1950. Numbered voices: How opinion polling has shaped American politics (pp. 89-107). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jasperson, A. E. et al. (1998). Framing and the Public Agenda: Media Effects on the Importance of the Federal Budget Deficit. Political Communication, 15, 205-224. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10584609.asp Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963). Constituency Influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review, 57 (1), 45-56. Retrieved from http://www.apsanet.org/content_3222.cfm Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. The American Political Science Review, 77 (1), 175-190. Retrieved from http://www.apsanet.org/content_3222.cfm