Cited by 443International Relations and Foreign PolicyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Science Research and Education

A Bottom‐Up Theory of Public Opinion about Foreign Policy

Kertzer, Joshua D., Zeitzoff, Thomas·2017·American Journal of Political Science

Abstract

If public opinion about foreign policy is such an elite‐driven process, why does the public often disagree with what elites have to say? We argue here that elite cue‐taking models in International Relations are both overly pessimistic and unnecessarily restrictive. Members of the public may lack information about the world around them, but they do not lack principles, and information need not only cascade from the top down. We present the results from five survey experiments where we show that cues from social peers are at least as strong as those from political elites. Our theory and results build on a growing number of findings that individuals are embedded in a social context that combines with their general orientations toward foreign policy in shaping responses toward the world around them. Thus, we suggest the public is perhaps better equipped for espousing judgments in foreign affairs than many of our top‐down models claim.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajps.12314

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To the extent that the media adopts a consistent approach to reporting about cyberterrorism, any elite variance will not necessarily filter down to the public.

    “To the extent that the media adopts a consistent approach to reporting about cyberterrorism, then any elite variance will not necessarily filter down to the public (Groeling and Baum 2008; Kertzer and Zeitzoff 2017).”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Kertzer and Zeitzoff 2017

  • The public follows elite opinion in developing views on foreign policy and national security issues.

    “A tenet of public opinion and international relations scholarship holds that the public follows elite opinion in developing views on foreign policy and national security issues.”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Kertzer and Zeitzoff 2017

  • Views on cyber issues, where elite guidance is divided, diverge from the classical model that the public follows elite opinion.

    “We demonstrate that views on cyber issues, where elite guidance is divided, diverge from this classical model.”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Kertzer and Zeitzoff 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kertzer, J. D., & Zeitzoff, T.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • American University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-06
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
543-558
ISSN
  • 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5907
OpenAlex
W2622163922
Cited by
443
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
101.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
Keywords
public opinion, foreign policy, social cues, peer influence, information cascades, bottom-up model, survey experiment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review