Jon Hurwitz

How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model

It has long been assumed that foreign-policy attitudes of the mass public are random, disorganized, and unconstrained if they exist at all. Further, foreign-policy thinking has not been found to be structured along standard ideological (liberal-conservative) lines, partisan lines, or class lines. We attempt to move the discussion from a question of whether foreign-policy attitudes are structured to a question of how they are structured. We propose and estimate (using a LISREL model) a hierarchically organized foreign-policy belief structure in which specific policy preferences are derived from postures ( broad, abstract beliefs regarding appropriate general governmental strategies). These postures, in turn, are assumed to be constrained by a set of core values about the international community .

Racial Stereotypes and Whites' Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime STOR

Theory: Social psychological theories of social stereotyping are used to generate a series of predictions about how and when whitesstereotypes of African-Americans are likely to bias their evaluations of blacks in the areas of welfare and crime. Hypotheses: The degree to which whites endorse negative stereotypes of blacks not only tends to bias their judgments of black (versus white) welfare recipients and criminal suspects, but also affects the way they respond to counter-stereotypical information about the target. Methods: Regression analysis and analysis of variance of data from a series of survey experiments with 1,841 whites in which the race and other attributes of welfare mothers, welfare recipients, and drug suspects were manipulated. Results: Whites holding negative stereotypes are substantially more likely to judge blacks more harshly than similarly described whites in the areas of welfare and crime policy. We also find that even whites with strongly negative perceptions of blacks respond quite favorably to them when confronted with individuating information that clearly contradicts their stereotype. By way of contrast, respondents who reject negative stereotypes of African-Americans display a remarkable consistency in their responses across both the race and the individuating information of the target.

The Racial Components of "Race-Neutral" Crime Policy Attitudes

Past studies have found evidence of a connection between race and crime in the minds of many white Americans, but several gaps remain in our knowledge of this association. Here, a multimethod approach was used to examine more closely the racial component of whites’ support for ostensibly race-neutral crime policies. Conventional correlational analysis showed that negative stereotypes of African Americans—specifically, the belief that blacks are violent and lazy—are an important source of support for punitive policies such as the death penalty and longer prison terms. A survey experiment further showed that negative evaluations of black prisoners are much more strongly tied to support for punitive policies than are negative evaluations of white prisoners. These findings suggest that when many whites think of punitive crime policies to deal with violent offenders, they are thinking of black offenders.

Gender Differences on Crime and Punishment

Despite extensive documentation of the gender gap across a range of po litical issues, little is known about gender differences toward issues of crime and punishment. In this study, we systematically examine how, and why, women and men approach the issue of crime. We find that women are more afraid of crime and more supportive of prevention ef forts than men, though fear of crime and womens policy attitudes are not related in a causal sense. These findings are consistent with differences in womens and mens socialization experiences. They have important im plications for both feminist theory and the ability of the political par ties to use the crime issue to their advantage.

The Means and Ends of Foreign Policy as Determinants of Presidential Support

Previous research has not found foreign policy attitudes to be an important determinant of political evaluations (such as voting or presidential evaluation). Such findings, though, may have underestimated the importance of foreign policy because they are based on aggregate data and because they measure such attitudes at a level which is much too specific. We argue that citizens base presidential evaluations on foreign policy in two ways: first, by focusing on international outcomes as retrospective judges; and second, by evaluating the general foreign policy postures of the administration. Based on a sample of Twin Cities adults, it is found that foreign policy has a substantial impact on evaluations of President Reagan.

Models of attitude constraint in foreign affairs

A relatively recent innovation in research on attitude constraint is the specification of hierarchical models of mass belief systems, where general orientations are assumed to determine or constrain more specific policy attitudes. But while this research has been able to demonstrate a strong correlation between general and specific idea elements, the causal direction of the relationship has been assumed rather than tested. Using panel data collected during a period of constancy in the international environment, we attempt to untangle the causal ordering of general orientations and specific policy attitudes in the realm of international politics. In accord with hierarchical models, we find, first, that general orientations (e.g., militarism and containment postures) are more stable than many specific policy preferences (e.g., attitudes toward defense spending and U.S. involvement in Central America) and, second, much of the over-time consistency in policy attitudes is generated by these more general orientations. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work for studies of attitude constraint, one of which is thegeneral applicability of the procedure for investigating top-down versus bottom-up models of constraint in domains outside the international realm.

Perception and prejudice : race and politics in the United States

Based on one of the most extensive scientific surveys of race ever conducted, this book investigates the relationship between racial perceptions and policy choices in America. The contributors - leading scholars in the fields of public opinion, race relations, and political behavior - clarify and explore images of African-Americans that white Americans hold and the complex ways that racial stereotypes shape modern political debates about such issues as affirmative action, housing, welfare, and crime.

Of Crusades and Culture Wars: “Messianic” Militarism and Political Conflict in the United States

In this paper, we explore the manner and extent to which differences in militaristic orientations occupy an important front in the much ballyhooed American “culture war.” In particular, we posit that belief in biblical inerrancy engenders a “messianic” militarism. We further suggest that this relationship occurs not only directly but also indirectly, through a heightened sense of nationalism. We compare the predictive capacity of such traditionalistic Christian “believing” to other elements associated with it: (1) cognitive dogmatism, (2) hierarchical visions of authority, (3) devotionalism, and (3) immersion within the traditionalistic Christian culture. Finally, we demonstrate the relevance of these dynamics to understanding “red/blue” cleavage structures in the United States, by showing that as belief in the authority of the Bible increases, so does the perceived electoral salience of foreign policy issues, relative to domestic issues.

Democratic Principles, Discrimination and Political Intolerance

Political intolerance has typically been conceptualized as an unwillingness to extend expressive rights to disliked groups or individuals. One problem with this conceptualization is that, when a given percentage of individuals in a polity is found to be intolerant, it is not known if these respondents are intolerant because of the act or because of the actor. We conceptualize intolerance multidimensionally, making a distinction between generic and discriminatory intolerance; while the former stems from an unwillingness to permit the expressive act (such as holding a rally) regardless of the actor, the latter is reserved for an unwillingness to permit the act only when performed by a noxious group. Using data from the Multi-Investigator II Study (a national telephone survey of adults in the United States), we employed a split ballot technique to decompose the total proportion of intolerant respondents into groups whose intolerance stems from an aversion to the actor (discriminatory) versus those whose intolerance stems from an aversion to the act (generic). We further explored the genesis of intolerance, finding that the two types we identified stem from different antecedents.

PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT DURING THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR An Individual-Level Analysis of Presidential Reappraisal

The great majority of analyses of presidential support utilize aggregate data and, consequently, are not appropriate for the analysis of individual-level changes in support in response to events within an administration. Using National Election Studies panel data, we investigate presidential support both before and after the major revelations of the Iran-Contra affair to determine the reasons behind the erosion of President Reagans support base and the characteristics of individuals who did, and did not, adjust their views of the president subsequent to the revelations. While Reagan maintained his image of integrity, respondents did downgrade his competence; his performance was most seriously questioned by those disapproving of his Central American policy.