Suchergebnisse

A study undertaken during the height of the controversy surrounding the loyalty oath requirement at the U of Calif, to determine the reactions of the student body to the crisis situation. It was assumed that a person's stand on the loyalty oath did not change his general political predispositions, signif group affiliations, newspaper reading habits or participation in the U community. From the Registrar's files every 40th S was selected systematically and interviewed concerning opinions about the loyalty and the non-Communist hiring policy. The study indicates anew that opinion formation tends in large part to be a product of the activation of previous experience and attitudes. S's reacted to the crisis situation largely according to their group affiliations and other background characteristics. The deviant cases suggest that deviation in behavior is a result of being exposed to cross pressures. Liberal S's who read pro-oath newspapers were more likely to support the oath requirements than those reading a paper consistent with their basic political attitudes and vice versa. Another effect of S's exposed to conflicting norms was a relatively high level of ignorance regarding the issues and their background, which may have served the function of reducing clarity, and therefore the intensity of the conflict. This may have accounted for greater lack of knowledge among the pro's than among the antiRegents S's. In every category, S's who were against the Regents, but who had characteristics or were exposed to pressures which made for pro-Regents attitudes, were less likely to sign an anti-oath petition than those with homogeneous anti-Regents characteristics. R. Halpern.

Based on a session of the Fifth annual conference on public opinion research, sponsored by the Am. association for public opinion research and the World association for public opinion research, Lake Forest, Ill., June 15-20, 1950.

The need for authenticity is a latent manifesto of Romanians who seem overwhelmed by a constant wave of inauthenticity, prejudices, and stereotypes in an environment that makes it more difficult for us to adhere to a genuine development as individuals, but also as a society. Public opinion reveals itself under the impact of the desired authenticity to cope with galloping globalism, which turns us into bystanders of our own lives. More specifically, in a world where we have become accustomed to our ideas being very aesthetically packed, the characteristics of the products for which we show a certain interest, the quality of the services we want and the values we so ardently adhere to, the need to be sure that we receive exactly what we have been mentally longing for becomes a purpose in itself. Thus, the more common and plentiful the values we are exposed to, along with the risk that they may be prebuilt, the greater the possibility for people to develop the need for a guarantee of compliance with the promises made by these values – a need for authenticity. I hope that my paperwork can contribute to further research in terms of arousing the interest of those who are looking to better understand why globalism can affect both public opinion and authenticity. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the position of talking about black swans whenever the public opinion is different from the minority that we are part of. In a world of social media, the article talks about vocal minorities and the silent majority.

'Pluralistic ignorance' appears to mean that members of a group can estimate the distribution of opinions in the group on an issue, but the estimate may be wrong, & wrong in the direction of tradition rather than change. These propositions were tested through 2 surveys in New Orleans, one using a church as the group & the other sampling the entire city. The issue studied was desegregation. S's were asked their own opinions, then their estimate of the views of others in the group. The existence of pluralistic ignorance was demonstrated. When R's guessed that others' opinions might be diff from their own, their guess almost always went in the traditional (ie, pro-segregation) direction. Pro-segregationists showed great inability to believe that others could be anything but pro-segregation; those favoring change were better predictors. 2 discrepant findings appeared: the church, the smaller & more homogeneous group of the 2, showed more pluralistic ignorance than the city; & educated persons in the city sample did no better in assessing opinion than the less-educated. Suggested as a variable to explain these findings is 'level of crystallization' - the city being more crystallized than the church, which was still struggling to define its own position. It is suggested that the existence of pluralistic ignorance may be a factor in prolonging resistance to desegregation in the Deep South, but mostly in uncrystallized situations. This probably means situations where new alternatives are emerging, eg, token segregation as against closed Sch's. AA.