Advertisement

Opinion Shift and Stability: The Information Environment and Long-Lasting Opposition to Trump’s Muslim Ban

  • Kassra A. R. OskooiiEmail author
  • Nazita Lajevardi
  • Loren Collingwood
Original Paper

Abstract

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed executive order 13769, which denied citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries entry into the United States. Opposition to what was termed the “Muslim ban” quickly amassed, producing sudden shifts to the information environment and to individual-level preferences. The present study examines whether within-subject shifts against the ban lasted over an extended period of time. Evidence from a three-wave panel study indicates that individual-level opinions, once they shifted against the ban, remained fairly stable one year later. Analysis of a large corpus of cable broadcast transcripts and newspaper articles further demonstrates that coverage of the ban from February 2017 to January 2018 did not dissipate, remained largely critical, and lacked any significant counter-narratives to potentially alter citizens’ preferences once again. Our study underscores the potential of capturing the dynamics of rapid attitudinal shifts with timely panel data, and of assessing the durability of such changes over time. It also highlights how mass movements and political communication may alter and stabilize citizens’ policy preferences, even those that target stigmatized groups.

Keywords

Public opinion Muslim Americans Race and ethnic politics Immigration American identity Political communication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the past and current editorial team of Political Behavior and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and suggestions. Special thanks is also extended to Erin Cassese, Seulgi Lee, Charles Mills, Emily Tohma, Ali Valenzuela, and participants at the UCSD PRIEC, UCR Mass Behavior Brown Bag Series, Princeton Center for the Study of Democratic Politics workshop, and APSA panel on the racialization of Islam and Muslims.

References

  1. Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2002). Agenda setting and the “new” news: Patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research, 29(2), 180–207.Google Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., Jussim, L. J., & Wilder, D. (2001). Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224.Google Scholar
  4. Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2013). Crowdsourcing panel studies and real-time experiments in MTurk. The Political Methodologist, 20(2), 27–32.Google Scholar
  5. Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2015a). Chief Justice Roberts’s health care decision disrobed: The microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 403–418.Google Scholar
  6. Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2015b). Issue-specific opinion change: The Supreme Court and health care reform. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(4), 881–905.Google Scholar
  7. Citrin, J., Reingold, B., & Green, D. P. (1990). American identity and the politics of ethnic change. The Journal of Politics, 52(4), 1124–1154.Google Scholar
  8. Citrin, J., Wong, C., & Duff, B. (2001). The meaning of American national identity. Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction, 3, 71.Google Scholar
  9. Collingwood, L., Lajevardi, N., & Oskooii, K. A. R. (2018). A change of heart? Why individual-level public opinion shifted against Trump’s Muslim Ban. Political Behavior, 10(4), 1035–1072.Google Scholar
  10. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, D. W. (2007). Negative liberty: Public opinion and the terrorist attacks on America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, D. W., & Silver, B. D. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 28–46.Google Scholar
  13. Duss, M, Taeb, Y, Gude, K & Sofer, K (2015). “Fear, Inc. 2.0.” Center for American Progress .Google Scholar
  14. Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 211–234.Google Scholar
  15. Erikson, Robert  S, MacKuen, Michael  B, & Stimson, James  A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Espenshade, T. J., & Calhoun, C. A. (1993). An analysis of public opinion toward undocumented immigration. Population Research and Policy Review, 12(3), 189–224.Google Scholar
  17. Frendreis, J., & Tatalovich, R. (1997). Who supports English-only language laws? Evidence from the 1992 National Election Study. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 354–368.Google Scholar
  18. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2006). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  19. Gerber, A. S., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135–150.Google Scholar
  20. Gilens, M., & Murakawa, N. (2002). Elite cues and political decision-making. Research in Micropolitics, 6, 15–49.Google Scholar
  21. Gustavsson, G (2017). National attachment–cohesive, divisive or both?: The divergent links to solidarity from national identity, national pride, and national chauvinism. In Liberal nationalism and its critics: Normative and empirical questions, June 20-21 2017.Google Scholar
  22. Harrison, B. F., & Michelson, M. R. (2017). Listen, we need to talk: How to change attitudes about LGBT rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.Google Scholar
  24. Huddy, L. (2015). Group identity and political cohesion. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0155.Google Scholar
  25. Huddy, L., & Sears, D. O. (1995). Opposition to bilingual education: Prejudice or the defense of realistic interests? Social Psychology Quterly, 58, 133–143.Google Scholar
  26. Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77.Google Scholar
  27. Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 2053168015604648.Google Scholar
  28. Iyengar, Shanto, & Kinder, Donald  R. (2010). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kalkan, K. O., Layman, G. C., & Uslaner, E. M. (2009). “Bands of others”? Attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American Society. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 847–862.Google Scholar
  30. Kearns, E. M., Betus, A., & Lemieux, A. (2018). Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media attention than others?’. Justice Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1524507.Google Scholar
  31. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Klar, S. (2013). The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. The Journal of Politics, 75(4), 1108–1124.Google Scholar
  33. Klar, S. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704.Google Scholar
  34. Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(3), 240–255.Google Scholar
  35. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.Google Scholar
  36. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 537–567.Google Scholar
  37. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Michael Hanemann, W., Kopp, R. J., et al. (2002). The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 371–403.Google Scholar
  38. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 497–512.Google Scholar
  39. Lajevardi, Nazita (2017). A comprehensive study of Muslim American discrimination by legislators, the media, and the masses. University of California, San Diego. Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
  40. Lajevardi, N., & Oskooii, K. A. R. (2018). Old-fashioned racism, contemporary islamophobia, and the isolation of Muslim Americans in the age of trump. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 3(1), 112–152.Google Scholar
  41. Lajevardi, N., & Abrajano, M. A. (2018). How negative sentiment towards Muslim Americans predicts support for trump in the 2016 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 296–302.Google Scholar
  42. Lenz, G. S. (2013). Follow the leader?: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, 6(1), 2158244016636433.Google Scholar
  44. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.Google Scholar
  45. Mason, L. (2013). The rise of uncivil agreement: Issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 140–159.Google Scholar
  46. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.Google Scholar
  47. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138.Google Scholar
  48. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078.Google Scholar
  49. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1982). Changes in Americans’ policy preferences, 1935–1979. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(1), 24–42.Google Scholar
  50. Page, Benjamin  I, & Shapiro, Robert  Y. (2010). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  52. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  53. Roberts, M., Wanta, W., & Dzwo, T.-H. (2002). Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research, 29(4), 452–465.Google Scholar
  54. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2006). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
  55. Schildkraut, D. J. (2003). American identity and attitudes toward official-English policies. Political Psychology, 24(3), 469–499.Google Scholar
  56. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Tesler, M. (2015). Priming predispositions and changing policy positions: An account of when mass opinion is primed or changed. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 806–824.Google Scholar
  59. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kassra A. R. Oskooii
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nazita Lajevardi
    • 2
  • Loren Collingwood
    • 3
  1. 1.University of DelawareNewark USA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing USA
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations