Public Support for U.S. Alliances

• In Event: Public Opinion Virtual Poster Session

Abstract

Public opinion scholars have long struggled with how the public makes sense of the world, particularly when places are distant and receive scant coverage from the news media. Early research posited that public opinion was largely unstructured, unstable, and poorly formed (Almond, 1950; Lippmann, 1955). Subsequent research has reassessed the Almond-Lippmann consensus finding that foreign policy attitudes are structured around political orientations, values, and images of the enemy (Peffley and Hurwitz, 1993; Rathbun et al., 2016). Although the public lacks information, Americans respond rationally to a changing world (Peffley and Hurwitz, 1992; Shapiro and Page, 1988) and are “pretty prudent” and realistic in their opinions regarding the use of military force (Jentleson, 1992; Drezner, 2008). Despite this substantial body of research, however, we know far less about American attitudes toward U.S. alliances that have been the backbone of US security for several decades and continue to play a critical role in U.S. foreign policy. Why American support for the multilateral alliance in Europe (NATO) and bilateral alliances in Asia (South Korea and Japan) varies across individuals remains a puzzle. In this paper, we systematically explore this puzzle using observational data and experimental analysis. First, we examine the variance in individual support for a set of U.S. alliances included in the Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey data. Second, we create a novel survey experiment to disentangle the effects of elite cues, media salience, and cultural similarity on American support for US alliances.

Authors

• Kyung Suk Lee, Texas A&M university

• Robert Kirby Goidel, Texas A&M