Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, Revised Edition

Abstract

Examines continuity and change in U.S. foreign policy in terms of international, societal, institutional, bureaucratic, and individual variables, providing students both the explicit analytical framework and the detailed substantive knowledge necessary to understand how American foreign policy is formulated. An original and searching analysis of conflict from the multiple perspectives of political science, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Appropriate for courses in conflict, violence, war, revolution, peace studies, and international relations. "This is the most important work on urban social theory in the past decade." G. David Garson, North Carolina State University-Raleigh Through an original and lucid critique of five major social thinkers who have stressed the dehumanizing aspects of urbanization, Smith seeks to demonstrate that it is the economic organization of society, not its level of urbanization, that creates the conditions for social alienation and urban crisis. For courses in urban politics, urban sociology, urban studies, and urban planning. The first textbook of policy evaluation to provide not only theory but a rigorous, integrative methodology based on specific objective criteria. Summarizes recent developments in policy-evaluation research and provides illustrative examples of ongoing policy evaluations. An unusually clear and cogent text that uses the organizing concepts of coalitions, elites, and masses to analyze political opinion in America. While giving due coverage to other views and avoiding a polemical tone, the authors argue that mass indifference, not elite domination, is the major threat to American democracy. Suitable for courses in public opinion, political behavior, political parties, elections, and political sociology. Just published 298 pages, paper To request a complimentary examination copy, please write (specifying course, present text, and approximate enrollment) to:-=-^ = ^ ^-St. Martin's Press

Understanding Responses to Political Conflict: Interactive Effects of the Need for Closure and Salient Conflict Schemas.

“…1 Moreover, it was reliably correlated with a single-item measure of political conservatism (see below; r = .25, p<. 01), a dimension which has also been linked to hostile perceptions in the international domain (Holsti, 1996;Peffley & Hurwitz, 1990). Higher scores indicated a more competitive conflict schema Hawkishness.…”

“…According to the -simplicity‖ hypothesis described earlier, one might expect the need for closure to be associated with a hawkish approach to relations with the Soviet Union, since vigorously opposing the enemy reinforces the validity of the national cause and promises closure in the form of eventual victory. However, research on attitudes toward international conflict at both the elite and mass levels suggests considerable variance in the conflict schemas people bring to bear on judgments about foreign affairs (see Holsti, 1996). In this vein, studies have found reliable individual differences in the degree to which political actors rigidly divide the social world into -friends‖ and -foes,‖ with any cooperative overtures toward the latter being seen as betrayal and weakness.…”

“…In this vein, studies have found reliable individual differences in the degree to which political actors rigidly divide the social world into -friends‖ and -foes,‖ with any cooperative overtures toward the latter being seen as betrayal and weakness. Studies of this sort also find differences in the degree to which political and social life is generally viewed as a competitive, anomic struggle between self-interested agents (Holsti, 1996;Hurwitz & Peffley, 1990;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999;Wittkopf, 1990). In particular, those who gravitate toward the -hostile‖ end of this worldview spectrum tend to favor more aggressive ways of dealing with foreign powers, particularly those seen as immediate threats (Brewer & Steenbergen, 2002;Holsti, 1996;Wittkopf, 1990).…”

“…Studies of this sort also find differences in the degree to which political and social life is generally viewed as a competitive, anomic struggle between self-interested agents (Holsti, 1996;Hurwitz & Peffley, 1990;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999;Wittkopf, 1990). In particular, those who gravitate toward the -hostile‖ end of this worldview spectrum tend to favor more aggressive ways of dealing with foreign powers, particularly those seen as immediate threats (Brewer & Steenbergen, 2002;Holsti, 1996;Wittkopf, 1990). Accordingly, consistent with the qualification suggested by the -conflict-schema‖ hypothesis, we expected that the relationship between the need for closure and a hawkish approach to the Soviet Union would be most pronounced among officials whose worldviews make sharp -friend/foe‖ distinctions and depict compromise as dangerous.…”

“…Their contents are imparted and reinforced by parents, educational and societal authorities, and the mass media, usually in ways which link them to broader ideologies, worldviews, and social identities. Importantly, there are a variety of possible conflict schemas: some Need for closure and conflict schemas -7 worldviews and identities may be associated with schemas which suggest a distrust of outsiders and a need to rely on -tough,‖ aggressive strategies, while others may suggest schemas emphasizing a need for cooperation (see Brewer & Steenbergen, 2002;Golec, 2002b;Holsti, 1996;Jakubowska, 2002;Rokeach, 1967; see also Gelfand, Nishii, Holcombe, Dyer, Ohbuchi & Fukuno, 2001;Pearson & Stephan, 1998;Tinsley, 1998Tinsley, , 2001. In turn, these schemas constrain the strategic preferences of the group representatives and decision-makers, leading them to adopt the strategies defined as normative by their schemas (Bar-Tal et al, 1989).…”