| 1 |
导读和课程概览
Introduction and Overview of the Course |
|
第一部份：预读
Part 1: Preliminaries |
| 2 |
民意的意义和衡量
The Meaning and Measurement of Public Opinion |
民意是什么？
What is public opinion?
民意应如何定义？如何衡量？两者是否可以分离？
How should it be defined? How should it be measured? Are these separable questions?
公众的意义是什么？是群众还是专注的大众？这是重要课题， 因为这引进民主的意义。
What do we mean by Public? Do we mean the mass or the attentive public? Important question, because it gets at the meaning of democracy.
为什么社会学的传统日渐式微？我们是否失去了一些民意的重要基本定义？
Why did the sociological tradition fade? Have we lost something essential about the meaning of public opinion?
理解强化有什么效果（Herbst）？
What is the effect of increasing rationalization (Herbst)?
你是否认同Key把民意分为潜隐性和活跃性？
Do you like Key's distinction between latent and active opinion?
你认为Converse是否有合理地陈述Blummer对总合的批评？
Do you think that Converse fairly characterizes Blummer's criticism of the aggregation method?
政治人物应否留意民意？应否留意民意调查？
Should politician care about public opinion? Should they care about opinion polls? |
第二部份：能力的问题
Part 2: Questions of Competence |
| 3 |
政治无知：成因和后果
Political Ignorance: Causes and Effects |
Lupia提出的听从提示策略是否有其局限？信任和专业知识扮演什么角色？我们需要讯息来找出有关的提示。Lupia的关键论点是讯息脉络（上文下理）的运作。你需要指出保险公司的定位。这是一般，还是特殊个案－那种情况比较实际？还有，这是“非随机”抽样。这会对他的推论带来难题吗？
Are there limits to the cue-taking strategies discussed by Lupia? What is the role of trust and expertise - we need information to identify relevant cues. The key to Lupia's argument is the mechanism of contextual information. You need to identify the insurance company's positions. Is it realistic to expect that this will happen in most circumstances, or was this a special case? Also, this was a non-random sample. Does that create problems for his inferences?
你如何看待凭记忆辩论相对于线上辨论？
What do you make of the On-line vs. Memory-Based debate?
有关Zaller的一些问题。Zaller认为精英份子的陈述带有“指示”和“游说”的讯息，但他没有为两者划出界限。Zaller还说了很多有关和人们的内在倾向是一致或矛盾的讯息。但这些倾向是从何而来？
Some questions/problems with Zaller. Zaller says that both "cuing" and "persuasive" messages are carried in elite discourse. But he doesn't really draw a clear distinction between them - what is what. Also Zaller talks a lot about messages that are congruent or discordant with people's underlying predispositions. But where do these predispositions come from?
政治讯息在社会上不平等分布会带来什么问题？是否有解决办法？
What are the problems created by the unequal dispersion of political information throughout society? Are there solutions?
有些作者认为要人们参加“测验”来量度他们的讯息水平是不对的。你是否同意？如果同意，那一个是比较合情理的办法？
Some authors argue that it is a mistake to give people "tests" to measure their information levels. Do you agree? If so, what is a more sensible method?
回想上星期讨论“民众”的定义。这星期的书目有否改变你对“民众”的定义？
Think back to last week and the definition of the public. Do this week's readings affect how you think we should define the public?
如果我们的国民是讯息贫乏，民主的起步点在那里？
If we have a poorly informed citizenry, what is the starting point for democracy? |
| 4 |
追求至关重要的原则：意识形态和政治理解
The Search for Overarching Principles: Ideology and Political Reasoning |
什么是“意识形态”？什么是“信念系统”？我们是在寻找什么？Converse没有假定有左／右思维（为此他被猛烈批评）。他是在随意寻找任何思维结构。
What is "ideology"? What is a "belief system"? What are we looking for? Converse doesn't presume a L/R dimension (he gets a bad rap for that). He's looking for any structure.
Lane的“摩氏密码论”和Converse的“零碎论”有什么不同？
How different is Lane's "Morselizing" from Converse's "fragmentation."
“模棱两可”是否不妥？Lane认为意识形态不一定是好事。我们是否要求人们有定型的态度？许多议题的精英份子陈述是难以捉摸－源自美国政治传统的多面体。是否于人们的态度中反映出来？
Is ambivalence a bad thing? Gets at Lane's contention that ideology is not necessarily a good thing. Do we want people with fixed attitudes? Elite discourse on many issues is slippery and difficult to pin down - draws on different faces of the American political tradition. Is this reflected in people's attitudes?
政治的多元论。Converse如何吻合这论调？他对议题公众的论点是否正确（回想一下Delli Carpini和Keeter）？
Pluralist view of politics. How does Converse fit into this? Is he right about issue publics (think back to Delli Carpini and Keeter).
如果Achen是正确的，这对Converse是否为致命伤？那么其他形态的证据又如何：开放答案，跨议题局限，群众／精英的分别…Converse的争论着重多个论点。请留意：
If Achen is right, is this fatal for Converse? What about other forms of evidence - open-ended, cross-issue constraint, mass/elite differences… Converse's argument rests on many legs. Finds that:
在回应开放答案的问题时，人们不以意识形态词语来回答。
People don't use ideological terms in open-ended proves.
测试人们对意识形态词语的认识－不合格：认识率是50%，这已是相当宽松的评分。
People fail recognition tests of ideological terms - 50% recognize, and that's generous.
局限是薄弱的－内部议题的联系关系相对为低；精英群较高。
Constraint is weak - inter-issue correlation is relatively low; and higher among elites.
Achen要针对的是时间不稳定性－议题的答案似乎是随机的，因此不可能是来自零碎（但是协调）的信念制度。
Over time instability; this is the piece that Achen deals with - issue answers seem to be random; therefore can't be driven by fragmented (but coherent) belief systems.
深入检视Achen。他的论点是什么？先完成数学部份。关键测试是他试图为答案的差异设计一套模式。他声称如果Converse是对的，这并不符合我们期望的政治模式。每一答案都是有差异，因此显然是问卷出错。但我们要留意：方法（Converse对答案弄虚作假的批评），丧失数据的问题（1225页；去除没有意见的1/3抽样样本；似乎他有为本身利益而弄虚作假。）
Let's look at Achen closely. What's his argument? Work through the math. Key test is at end when he tries to model response variance. Says that doesn't follow patterns of political sophistication as we would expect if Converse is right. Everyone is variant, therefore, problem is with the question. But concerns: measures (Converse's criticism of stacking the deck against findings), missing data problem (pp. 1225; knocks out 1/3 of the sample who don't express an opinion; seems like he's stacking the deck in his favor).
你对Lane的技巧了解为何？民众似乎是理性和统一的。这有多少是真实，有多少是对Lane的方法的回应？
What do you make of Lane's technique? The citizens seem sensible and somewhat coherent. How much of that is real, how much is reaction to method.
我们是否要求人们要有“意识形态”？Lane认为意识形态是坏事，等同思想僵化；他较为偏重人们的思维要有弹性。
Do we want people to be "ideological" Lane sees it as a bad thing - rigidity of thought. He would rather see people as flexible thinkers. |
第三部份：从头说起：民意内涵和公众爱好的个体基础
Part 3: Building From the Ground Up: Opinion Ingredients and The Micro-Foundations of Public Preferences |
| 5 |
物质利益（或象征政治？）
Material Interests (Or Symbolic Politics?) |
我们应如何定义私利（一己之利）？（Sears－狭窄的，短期的；Downs－广阔的，长期的；还有，什么是“利”？什么是“己”？是你自己、家庭、团体？）我们应如何衡量私利？这是否有关联？这是重要问题，因为对私利的研究指出这（一般并不重要）。这究竟是因为它事实上无关紧要，或是我们的概念构思和衡量方法是拙劣不堪？（核心问题：什么是“利”？什么是“己”？主观相对于客观。）
How should we define self-interest? (Sears - Narrow, short-term; Downs - Broad, long-term: also, what counts as an interest? What is self? You alone, family, group?) How should we measure self-interest? Are these linked? An important question because the studies of self-interest find that it (generally doesn't matter). Is that because it really doesn't matter, or because we have poorly conceptualized and measured the concept? (Central questions: what is self? What is an interest? Subjective vs. objective).
私利在什么时候具其重要性？
When does self-interest matter?
- 私利在什么时候具其重要性？
- Sears and Citrin study of prop 13 - matters when costs are clear and made salient by a campaign.
- 当检视行为／行动，而不是意见。（Green和Cowden）
- Matters when look at behavior/action rather than opinion (Green and Cowden).
为什么私利具重要性？
Why doesn't self interest matter?
你对其他替代方案有什么看法－象征政治？这会有什么问题？象征政治是否长期利益的积累？（这是Sears等人采用专家小组数据的问题。）
What do you think of the alternative - symbolic politics? What are the problems with that? Is symbolic politics just a culmination of long-term interests? (Problems with Panel data used by Sears et al).
精英份子之陈述在此有什么作用？可能我们要靠精英份子指引我们什么是我们的利益－第13号案例。
What role does elite discourse play here. Maybe we need elites to point us to our interests - Prop 13 case.
确保不要混淆私利和理性的根本原则。前者的根本原则是指效用函数的内容；后者是效用最大化的过程。这些概念是可以分离的。
Make sure not to confuse self-interest axiom and rational axiom. In the first, we're talking about what goes into a utility function; in the second, we're talking about the process of utility maximization. These concepts are separable.
这星期书目案例中说明私利形成参与模式，这究竟有多少是不寻常？种族共用公车，和社会保障可能有所不同－从中我们可以得出什么一般性的教训？
How unusual are the cases we saw in this week's readings where self-interest plays a role in shaping participation patterns? Busing and Social Security might be different - what general lessons can we draw? |
| 6 |
美国政治的团体：两阵对立
Groups in American Politics: Us and Them |
“种族鸿沟”是什么意思？架设一个空洞的种族模型是否足以反映这些分歧？
What does the "racial divide" mean? Is a dummy on race enough to capture differences?
群体认同是否吻合以前的作业？《美国选民》的作者似乎对群体认同有相当暗淡的看法（1964 的Converse也是如此）。群体认同是否为政治理解的充份基础？
How does group identification fit with previous work? The authors of the American Voter seem to take a somewhat dim view of group identification (as does Converse '64). Is group identification an adequate basis for political reasoning?
对你来说，这一组有关群体的文献有趣之处为何？之后又如何？太集中种族？我们是否继续以原子论的方法来研究种族？
What is interesting about the literature on groups to you? What should the next steps be? Too focused on race? Do we want to continue with an atomistic approach to studying groups?
群体会员的意思是什么？我们应如何衡量？圈内与圈外。
What does group membership mean? How should we measure it? Ingroup vs. outgroup. |
| 7 |
原则和价值
Principles and Values |
是否有一套“国家信念”？如果有，为什么民意有分歧？如果大家的价值相同，为什么最后目的有所不同？
Is there a "national creed?" If so, how can we have variance in opinion? If everyone holds the same values, how can we arrive at different ends?
让我们讨论方法。我们有多套检视价值的方法：数量分析（Feldman）、准则数量分析（Feldman与Zaller）和开放式问题（Chong）。这些不同方法有什么优点和缺点？请你思考Feldman的论点，和告知Luker十 Feldman与Zaller的论点所在。在讨论民意时他们有什么单项和整体的创见？
Let's talk about methods. Here we have a number of different methodological cuts into the question of values: Quant Analysis (Feldman), Quant Analysis of Codes (Feldman and Zaller), Open-ended questions (Chong). What are the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches? Think about Feldman - I ask you - vs. Luker and Feldman and Zaller - you tell me. What can they singularly and together tell us about public opinion?
再多谈方法：定义“价值”会有什么难题？什么是平等？（有728种分类。）从概念化转到行动化，难度更大。很难去定义“价值”，要衡量更难。底线：“价值”这概念，一开始就是难题。
More about methods: problems with defining what values are. What's equality? (728 types). This becomes even more difficult as we move from conceptualizing to operationalizing. It's hard to define values, but it's harder to measure them. Bottom line: from the get go, there are a lot of problems with the concept of values.
意识形态和价值之间的界限为何？为什么两者之一可以行得通，另一者却不可以？有什么不同之处？这些结果有多少是受“方法”推动？（可能是当不同价值有冲突时，意识形态就派上用场－说明如何协调有矛盾的争议。）
What is the line between ideology and values? Why does one seem to work and the other not? What is the distinction? How much of the results are methods-driven? (May be ideology comes in when values clash - tells you how to reconcile competing arguments).
谈一下Feldman的方法。你认为他的衡量策略如何？但是他找出大量的共同因素，这又会如何？
Talk about Feldman's methods. What do you make of his measurement strategy? But, he finds big coefficients. What about that?
有关价值的随意方向。你会采纳你欣赏的人（例如雷根总统）的价值或是会走另一个方向？
Question of causal direction on values. Do you adopt the values of the people you like (such as Reagan) or does the arrow go the other way?
在1988 （Feldman）至1992 （Feldman and Zaller）年间，“平等”有什么改变？1988年，平等是大事，但到了1992年，人们不怎样谈到平等，反而更多谈到个人主义（这在1988年是寂寂无闻的）。
What happened to equality between 1988 (Feldman) and 1992 (Feldman and Zaller)? In 1988, equality is the big thing. But in 1992, people don't say much about equality. Instead, they talk about individualism (which had no pop in 1988).
价值和政治如何连系起来？作者未多加着墨。这带出框架和精英陈述，两者都是下一部份的课程。
How are links made between values and policies? The authors don't spend much time on this. Gets to issues of framing and elite discourse that we'll take up in the next section of the course.
价值排列如何？价值冲突－Alverez和Brehm文章略有谈到价值冲突，但大多数有关价值的研究工夫都是零碎的－每次只考虑一项（或两项）价值；没有考虑彼此之间的关系。
What happened to value ordering? Value conflict - see some of this in the Alverez and Brehm piece when they talk about value conflict. But most work on values has proceeded in a somewhat piecemeal fashion - look at one value (or maybe two) at a time; don't look at values in relation to each other. |
第四部份：外面的世界：社会和政治
Part 4: The World Out There: Society and Politics |
| 8 |
社会影响
Social Influence |
不同的作者如何构思准则－准则是什么？我们应如何定义准则？它们是否为有用的架构？
How do the different authors conceive of norms - what is a norm? How should we define norms? Are they useful constructs?
你如何看Mutz对各种机制的测试？她选择议题层面和政治内容来调节与政治接触的程度（我也是如此），但她没有探讨内部个别项目之间的变化。
What do you think of Mutz's tests of the different mechanisms? She chooses issue areas and political contexts to vary the level of engagement with politics (same thing that I do), but she doesn't look at inter-individual variation as much.
某人在调查中依上下文不同而表达不同的态度，这是什么意思？是否有特定的文脉内容让我们评估“真实态度”？还是不同的表达就是不同？回顾上星期Sanders的文献。
What does it mean for someone to express different attitudes in surveys depending on the context? Is there a particular context that allows us to assess "true attitudes"? Or are different expressions just different? Gets back to the Sanders reading we did that first week.
你对Mendelberg和Oliver的发现有什么看法？你是否被说服？这是不是研究文脉的最好方法？和Huckfeld和Sprague的策略比较又如何？
What do you make of the Mendelberg and Oliver findings? Are you convinced? Is this the best way to do contextual studies? Compare their strategies to those of Huckfeld and Sprague?
这星期的课题学习是否有顾及到Blumer对文脉的关注？是否还有遗漏？
Does the work this week address the Blumer concerns about context? Or is there still something missing?
我们应如何衡量文脉的效果？哪些是适当的方法？衡量Mendelberg和Oliver的文脉总合指数，衡量Huckfeld和Sprague讨论伙伴的意见，或Berinsky的推论法。不同的方法有什么优点和缺点？
How should we measure the effects of context? What are the appropriate methods? Measuring aggregate indicators of context (Mendelberg and Oliver), measuring the opinions of discussion partners (Huckfeld and Sprague), or inferential methods (Berinsky)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches?
Mutz如何符合政治讯息的钟形曲线？中央部份没有什么不妥当（只是对照准则）。但中央部份有多大－如Lupia；中央部份没有问题，但是不是差不多每个人都是中央部份？规范性的含意？
How does Mutz fit with the bell-curve of political information. Nothing sinister happens in the middle (there it's just a check). But how big is that middle - like Lupia; the middle is okay, but is almost everyone in the middle? Normative implications?
Huckfeld和Sprague是否有回答你有兴趣的问题？他们还可以多做些什么？
Do Huckfeld and Sprague answer the questions you think are interesting? What else could they have done?
总合相对于个体层次分析。潜在的问题（谈论一下Goodman的问题／EI）。
Aggregate vs. individual-level analysis. Potential problems (talk about Goodman's problem/EI).
个人或非个人影响－何者较为重要？
What matters most: personal influence or impersonal influence? |
| 9 |
框架，预设信息和媒体效应
Framing, Priming and Media Effects |
我们应如何学习媒体效果？跨界域二层分析（I+K），实验（Iyengar和Kinder，Miller和Krosnick Nelson，Berinsky+Kinder），还是晤谈采访（Gillens）？不同的方法有什么优点和缺点？再者，这是我们第一次接触实验性研究－你如何利用它作为研究工具？
How should we study media effects? Cross-sectional secondary analysis (I+K), experiments (Iyengar and Kinder, Miller and Krosnick Nelson, Berinsky+Kinder), interviews (Gillens)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches? Also, this is our first brush with experimental research - what do you make of it as a research tool?
我国应否关注框架效应的存在？对民意的意义和民主的价值有什么说法－在许多方面我们是回到Converse的观点，但加上了类似Achen的变奏。改变政治备用方案的陈述方式可能改变民意。
Should we be concerned about the existence of framing effects? What does it say about the meaning of public opinion and question of democratic worthiness - in many ways we're back to Converse, but with an Achen-like twist. Changing the presentation of political alternatives can move opinion.
你对Miller和Krosnick，以及Nelson等人对可行性的研究发现有什么看法？你认为研究有说服力吗？这跟Zaller的民意中心论有什么说法？如果些作者是对的。似乎有更多的代理人影响人们的意见，和我们以前认识的不同。
What do you make of the Miller and Krosnick and the Nelson et al. findings on accessibility. Do you find the research convincing? What does this say about our Zaller-centric view of public opinion? If these authors are right, it seems that people have more agency over their opinions than we give them credit for.
“了解”有什么角色？大多数作者是针对意见成形的流程－你对某议题先持什么态度？Berinsky和Kinder尝试处理政治了解的流程。你有什么意见？
What about the role of "understanding." Most authors deal with the end-state of the opinion formation process - where do you stand on a given issue? Berinsky and Kinder are trying to deal also with the process of political understanding. What do you think of that? |
| 10 |
总合与开明偏爱的奇迹（有谁是对的？）
The Miracle of Aggregation and Enlightened Preferences (Is Anyone Right?) |
应用定理的难题。Page和Shapiro争议“把许多个人的调查回应加起来或平均计算…会把量化众人意见的随机错误的扭曲效果抹掉。”但事实是否如此？Bartels就这样说：“如错误的源头同样影响到整体选民（或整体选民的相当大比数），无论整体选民人数是多少，误差最后不会被抵销。”
Problems in applying Condorcet's theorem. Page and Shapiro argue that "the simple process of adding together or averaging many individuals' survey responses . . . tends to cancel out the distorting effects of random errors in the measurement of individuals' opinions." But is this the case. As Larry notes. As Bartels notes, "if sources of error affect the entire electorate (or a significant fraction of the entire electorate) in similar ways, the resulting errors will simply not cancel out, no matter how large the electorate may be."
实践Condorcet定理的其他难题。Condorcet假设众多个体是追求一个共同目标。以陪审团为例，目标是寻求案件的真相。但是在一个多种族的社会，可能没有一个可相比较的目标。虽然众人能够百份百掌握某政策影响的信息，他们的需求欲望有基本性的分别，而带来南辕北辙的答案。还有独立特行的考虑－Bryan就有谈到。Condorcet的结论是要求众人各自独立选择自己的答案。现实世界中，人们是分享共有讯息，彼此沟通。因此，假设每人独立行事是不切实际的。实际上，这毛病可能不是致命的。Ladha（1992）以有关连的投票进一步伸展Condorcet的结论。
Other problems in applying Condorcet's result. Condorcet assumes that individuals seek a common goal. In the case of juries, this goal is the search for the truth about a case. However in a heterogeneous society, there may not be a comparable goal. Even if individuals had perfect information about the impact of particular policies, for example, fundamental disagreements regarding their wants, needs, and desires might lead them to opposing answers. Also question of independence - Bryan gets at this. Condorcet's result requires that individuals make their choices independently. I the real world, however, individuals share common information and may communicate with each other. Thus, the assumption of independent action may be unrealistic. This flaw may not, in practice, prove fatal. Ladha (1992) has extended Condorcet's result to the case with correlated votes.
Converse强调总合的魔力是倚靠讯息灵通的人士，所以认为是那些持“真正意见”（反对无意见者）的一群，推动Page和Shapiro对这问题的分析－事实上，Page和Shapiro的结论和Converse是同一码子的事。这是否令人信服？依此你对Page和Shapiro有何看法？总体稳定是来自一系列的中间趋势。量化的误差是否被抵销，或是稳定是掌握最多讯息的人所推动的结果？
Converse argues that aggregation works its magic by riding on the backs of the well-informed. So he would say that it's the people with "real opinions" (as opposed to non-attitudes) who drive Page and Shapiro's analysis of the question - in effect, Page and Shapiro find the same thing as Converse. Is this a reassuring result? What do we make of Page and Shapiro in light of this? Aggregate stability comes from a stable central tendency. Is this measurement error canceling out, or is it the stability of the most informed driving result?
应考虑那一层次的民意？个体层面？总体？两者之间？我们检视两者不同的背景特点－时间与跨界域。想一想Converse。理性有不同的方向。如果人们朝极端相反方向走，情况会如何？这些变动在总体综合中被抹掉，因而我们失去了重要的趋势走向。次总体的走向会被误以为是噪音而抹掉。或许我们应检视团体的总合。
What is the proper level to examine public opinion. Individual level? Aggregate? Something in-between? Would look at different background characteristics in both cases - over-time versus cross-sectional. Think about Converse. Rationality comes in net shifts. What happens if groups of people move in radically different directions? The change will get washed out in the aggregate. So we're missing important trends there. Sub-aggregate trends can get washed out as noise, even though they are not. Maybe we should be looking at aggregates of groups.
什么是检视总体的正确方法？我们应否虚构由个体一跳就跳到总体？似乎由个体出发，进一步到总体比较好。需要一个解释联系的说法。这就是这个项目的难处－不是从个体理论出发－从下而上是比较好。
What is the right way to look at the aggregate? Should we just make the leap up? Seems like it's better to start with the individual, then aggregate up. Need a better connecting story. That's the problem with a lot of this work - doesn't start with a theory of the individual - better to build up.
民主的讨论。Page和Shapiro谈到社会上的讨论和分工的角色。他们提出什么证据？（没有）。这是否是个好主意？
Democratic deliberation. Page and Shapiro talk about the role played by discussion and division of labor in society. What evidence do they present (none)? Is this a good idea?
你对Bartels和Athaus提议的策略有什么意见？他们的难题（讯息的非随机分派、量化的潜在困难）是否因Mondak所引致？Gilens的策略又如何？这是否解决了问题？你对追求“开明的偏爱”的企业有什么看法？这是我们应该做的吗？
What do you make of the strategy proposed by Bartels and Athaus? Are their problems (non-random assignment of information; potential problems in measurement brought on by the Mondak work,…). What about the Gilens' strategy? Does that solve the problem. What do you think about the enterprise of looking for "enlightened preferences"? Is this something that we should be doing? |
| 11 |
民意和公共政策
Public Opinion and Public Policy |
|
| 12 |
民意和公共政策
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy |
|
第五部份：反省
Part 5: Reflections |
| 13 |
最后想一想：民意在民主政治的地位
Final Thoughts: The Place of Public Opinion in Democratic Politics |
这一个学期，我们所读的哪一份研究是最好的？
What is the best of the research we read this semester?
下一门学问应是什么？
Where should we go next as a field?
是否有其他未探索或探索不足的方面？是否有过时的观念、不要多花功夫之处？
Are the unexplored/under-explored avenues? Are there dead horses we should stop beating? |
