Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 643–663 | Cite as

Divine Intervention? The Influence of Religious Value Communication on U.S. Intervention Policy

  • Paul A. Djupe
  • Brian R. Calfano
Original Paper

Abstract

Opinion about U.S. foreign intervention depends on both one’s belief about how the world works and those cognitively available value conceptions about how it should work. Consistent with social identity theory, we argue that values can shape social group boundaries and that these boundaries are analogous to the position of the U.S. in the world. Thus, the religious values we explore neatly map onto opinion about whether U.S. intervention should be qualified in its scope and rationale. In this investigation, we first provide experimental tests of religious value priming conducted on Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We then assess the degree to which American Protestant clergy communicate these values. The results of both investigations support the efficacy of considering the communication of religious values in shaping public opinion on U.S. foreign intervention.

Keywords

Values Priming Religion and politics Foreign policy attitudes Clergy politics Experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Phaik See Lim, Kris Kanthak, and Cathy Johnson for their assistance with this project, and David Barker, Jeff Kurtz, Dave Peterson, David Woodyard, and Ted Jelen for helpful suggestions along the way. We also thank the editors and the three anonymous reviewers for a very productive review process.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1959). Religion and prejudice. Crane Review, 2, 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence toward abortion policy: Development of a heteroscedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055–1082.Google Scholar
  3. Appleby, R. S. (2003). Serving two masters? Affirming religious belief and human rights in a pluralistic world. In J. D. Carlson & E. C. Owens (Eds.), The sacred and the sovereign: Religion and international politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, D. C., Hurwitz, J., & Nelson, T. L. (2008). Of crusades and culture wars: ‘‘messianic’’ militarism and political conflict in the United States. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 307–322.Google Scholar
  5. Bellah, R. N., Tipton, S. M., Sullivan, W. M., Madsen, R., & Swidler, A. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79, 1061–1078.Google Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  8. Cairns, E. E. (1996). Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.Google Scholar
  9. Calfano, B. R., Djupe, P. A., & Green, J. C. (2008). Muslims and the American presidency. In G. Espinosa (Ed.), Religion, race, and the American presidency. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, E. Q., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1959). Christians in racial crisis: A study of Littlerock’s ministry. Washington: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–578). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99–118.Google Scholar
  13. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.Google Scholar
  14. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crites, S. L, Jr, Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619–634.Google Scholar
  16. Djupe, P. A., & Calfano, B. R. (2009). Justification not by faith alone: Clergy generating trust and certainty by revealing thought. Politics & Religion, 2(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  17. Djupe, P. A., & Calfano, B. R. (2012). American Muslim investment in civil society: Political discussion, disagreement, and tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 517–529.Google Scholar
  18. Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. P. (2003). The prophetic pulpit: Clergy, churches, and communities in American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Djupe, P. A., & Gilbert, C. P. (2009). The political influence of churches. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Djupe, P. A., & Gwiasda, G. W. (2010). Evangelizing the environment: Decision process effects in political persuasion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 73–86.Google Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1994). Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward social groups and social policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 113–137.Google Scholar
  22. Finke, R., & Stark, R. (2005). The churching of America 1776–2005: Winners and losers in our religious economy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Gainous, J. (2008). Who’s ambivalent and who’s not? Social welfare ambivalence across ideology. American Politics Research, 36(2), 210–235.Google Scholar
  26. Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2002). Overcoming intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in democratic persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gilbert, C. P. (1993). The impact of churches on political behavior. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 881–896.Google Scholar
  29. Guth, J. L. (2009). Religion and public opinion: Foreign policy issues. In C. E. Smidt, L. Kellstedt, & J. Guth (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of religion and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Guth, J. L., Fraser, C. R., Green, J. C., Kellstedt, L. A., & Smidt, C. E. (1996). Religion and foreign policy attitudes: The case of Christian zionism. In J. C. Green, J. L. Guth, C. E. Smidt, & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  31. Guth, J. L., Green, J. C., Smidt, C. E., Kellstedt, L. A., & Poloma, M. (1997). The bully pulpit: The politics of protestant clergy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hadden, J. K. (1969). The gathering storm in the churches. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  33. Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E., & Visser, P. S. (1999). Mass public decisions to go to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 553–573.Google Scholar
  34. Hilpold, P. (2001). Humanitarian intervention: Is there a need for a legal reappraisal? European Journal of International Law, 12(3), 437–468.Google Scholar
  35. Hinckley, R. H. (1988). Public attitudes toward key foreign policy events. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(2), 295–318.Google Scholar
  36. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relationships and group processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Holmes, J. E. (1985). The mood/interest theory of American foreign policy. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  38. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communications: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.Google Scholar
  40. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchical model. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1099–1120.Google Scholar
  41. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jacoby, W. G. (2006). Value choices and American public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 706–723.Google Scholar
  43. Jelen, T. G. (1992). Political Christianity: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 692–714.Google Scholar
  44. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review, 69, 169–184.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, B. (1963). On church and sect. American Sociological Review, 28, 539–549.Google Scholar
  46. Kam, C. D., Wilking, J. R., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2007). Beyond the ‘narrow data base’: Another convenience sample for experimental research. Political Behavior, 29(4), 415–440.Google Scholar
  47. Katz, I., & Glen Haas, R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 893–905.Google Scholar
  48. Kohut, A., Green, J. C., Keeter, S., & Toth, R. C. (2000). The diminishing divide: Religion’s changing role in American politics. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  49. Krosnick, J. A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(3), 297–308.Google Scholar
  50. Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1132–1151.Google Scholar
  51. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497–512.Google Scholar
  52. Kull, S., & Destler, I. M. (1999). Misreading the public: The myth of a new isolationism. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  53. Leege, D. C. (1985). The findings of the notre dame study of catholic parish life. Mahwah, NJ: New Catholic World.Google Scholar
  54. Leege, D. C., & Kellstedt, L. A. (1993). Religious worldviews and political philosophies: Capturing theory in the grand manner through empirical data. In D. C. Leege & L. A. Kellstedt (Eds.), Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  55. Leege, D. C., & Trozzolo, T. A. (1989/2006). Report no. 4. Religious values and parish participation: The paradox of individual needs in a communitarian church. http://www.nd.edu/~icl/nd_study.shtml, Accessed 24 Jan 2010.
  56. Leege, D. C., & Welch, M. R. (1989). Religious roots of political orientations: Variation among American catholic parishioners. Journal of Politics, 51(1), 137–162.Google Scholar
  57. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399–419.Google Scholar
  58. Lucas, J. W. (2003). Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity. Sociological Theory, 21, 236–253.Google Scholar
  59. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in california insurance reform initiatives. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
  60. Mandelbaum, M., & Schneider, W. (1979). The new internationalism: Public opinion and American foreign policy. In K. Oye, D. Rothchild, & Robert E Lieber (Eds.), Eagle entangled: U.S. policy in a complex world. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  61. Mayer, J. D. (2004). ‘Christian fundamentalists and public opinion toward the middle east: Israel’s new best friends?’. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 695–712.Google Scholar
  62. Mockabee, S. T., Wald, K. D., & Leege, D. C. (2007). Reexamining religiosity: A report on the new religion items in the ANES 2006 pilot study. ANES pilot study reports. Ann Arbor, MI: American National Election Studies.Google Scholar
  63. Modigliani, A. (1972). Hawks and doves, isolationism and political distrust: An analysis of public opinion on military policy. The American Political Science Review, 66(3), 960–978.Google Scholar
  64. Monroe, K. R., Hankin, J., & Van Vechten, R. B. (2000). The psychological foundations of identity politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 419–447.Google Scholar
  65. Mueller, J. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 15–26.Google Scholar
  67. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246.Google Scholar
  68. Niebuhr, H. R. (1951). Christ and culture. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  69. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy opinions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  70. Park, J. Z., & Baker, J. (2007). What would Jesus buy: American consumption of religious and spiritual material goods. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(4), 501–517.Google Scholar
  71. Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  72. Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
  73. Pugh, M. (1996). Humanitarianism and peacekeeping. Global Society, 10(3), 205–224.Google Scholar
  74. Quinley, H. E. (1974). The prophetic clergy: Social activism among protestant ministers. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. Regan, P. (2002). Civil wars and foreign powers: Outside intervention in intrastate conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Roozen, D. A., McKinney, W., & Carroll, J. W. (1984). Varieties of religious presence: Mission in public life. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press.Google Scholar
  78. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.Google Scholar
  79. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.Google Scholar
  80. Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  81. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., Jack White, B., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  82. Smidt, C. (Ed.). (2004). Pulpits and politics: Clergy and the 2000 presidential election. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, G. A. (2008). Politics in the parish: The political influence of catholic priests. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The dynamics of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Gauging attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sowle Cahill, L. (1994). Love your enemies: Discipleship, pacifism and just war. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  87. Stark, R., & Finke, R. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  88. Stark, R., Foster, B. D., Glock, C. Y., & Quinley, H. (1971). Wayward shepherds: Prejudice and the protestant clergy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  89. Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  90. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.Google Scholar
  91. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 232, 96–102.Google Scholar
  92. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson.Google Scholar
  93. Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  94. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  95. Tocqueville, A. D. (1994/1840). Democracy in America (Vol. 2). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  96. Todorov, A., & Mandisodsa, A. N. (2004). Public opinion on foreign policy: The multilateral public that perceives itself as unilateral. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 323–348.Google Scholar
  97. Transue, J. E. (2007). Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 78–91.Google Scholar
  98. Troeltsch, E. (1931). The social teaching of the Christian churches. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  99. Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.Google Scholar
  100. Wald, K. D., Owen, D., & Hill, S. (1988). Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review, 82, 531–548.Google Scholar
  101. Whitley, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A meta-analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 21–38.Google Scholar
  102. Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, E. W. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value, and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 493–518.Google Scholar
  103. Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effects of explaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379–400.Google Scholar
  104. Wittkopf, E. R. (1986). On the foreign policy beliefs of the American people: A critique and some evidence. International Studies Quarterly, 30, 425–445.Google Scholar
  105. Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Wuthnow, R. (1998). After heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  107. Zaller, J. R. (1991). Information, values, and opinion. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1215–1237.Google Scholar
  108. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Political Science Review, 36(3), 579–616.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceDenison UniversityGranvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceMissouri State UniversitySpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations