Explaining Foreign Policy Attitudes: The Case of Danish Attitudes toward America

Date01 September 1977
Published date01 September 1977
DOI10.1177/001083677701200302
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17MWEAfwCMbZpX/input
Explaining Foreign Policy Attitudes:
The Case of Danish Attitudes toward America*
PETER HANSEN
Institute of Social Sciences, Odense University
Hansen, P. Explaining Foreign Policy Attitudes: the Case of Danish Attitudes toward
America. Cooperation and Conflict, XII
,
1977, 149-170.
The article discusses and evaluates the present state of approaches to the study of
foreign policy attitudes. Noting the prevalence of single-factor studies at only one
of several possible levels of analysis, the article emphasizes the need for more com-
prehensive analytic models, integrating various levels of analysis and different variable
categories. Drawing upon an analytical framework of this nature, Danish attitudes
toward America are analyzed from a variety of theoretical perspectives utilizing mea-
sures of personality disposition, socio-economic status, party preference, as well as
other factors. Comparing attitudes toward America with attitudes toward the Third
World and toward the Soviet Union shows how these foreign policy attitude aspects
are related differently to the different categories of explanatory variables included
in the analytical framework.
Peter Hansen, Institute of Social Sciences, Odense University.
1. INTRODUCTION
of people who can present more than
As foreign affairs over the past several
scanty facts, and connect these facts with
decades has evolved from
values
an esoteric
to a relatively consistent political
subject reserved for practitioners in state-
argument is not very large. This is par-
craft to become an object of presumed -
ticularly true in respect to complex, am-
and often strongly articulated - concern
biguous attitude objects like foreign
of the broad citizenry, the question of
policy issues and distant foreign nations.
how attitudes toward foreign nations are
Since opportunities for direct acquaint-
formed has attracted increasing attention
ance with, or information about, such
from social scientists. Based on the rather
issues or notions are rare, most people
hypothetical and normative premise that
can only very superficially calculate the
foreign policies are prescribed or at least
impact which foreign events have on
circumscribed by public opinion, much
their own personal situation or on that
research effort has
of their
gone into analyzing
own nation. No human mind is
the content and causes of foreign policy
capable of processing the vast amount of
opinions and attitudes.
’facts’ or impressions to which it is con-
In this article the main approaches to
tinuously exposed. Out of the sheer
the study of foreign policy attitudes are
necessity of mental economy it has to
discussed, and applied in an empirical
operate by means of categories into which
analysis of Danish attitudes toward the
these facts can be readily classified and
United States.
evaluated. If these categories and gener-
alizations become rigid and inflexible to
a degree where they ’govern perception
II. APPROACHES TO THE STUDY
rather than be[ing] governed and adjusted
OF FOREIGN POLICY ATTITUDES
by it’,1 they become what social psycho-
Several studies of political attitudes and
logists call overgeneralizations or stereo-
opinions have shown that the proportion
types. Personal experience with, and in-


150
formation about, other nations being as
there are many research results establish-
superficial and incidental as it is for most
ing evidence of causal linkages between
people, attitudes about them are partic-
the variables ’located’ there and the
ularly liable to be characterized by such
dependent variables. Thus, attitudes
overgeneralizations. The process by which
toward outgroups have been found to be
’we notice a trait which marks a well-
significantly correlated with a number of
known type and fill in the rest by means
personality measures and other psycho-
of the stereotype we carry around in our
logical instruments, with socio-economic
heads’,2 to use Walter Lippmann’s phrase,
factors
like
education, income and
is not least characteristic of the way in
status, and with membership of groups
which opinions about foreign nations and
such as political parties; further, there is
foreigners are formed and reinforced.
ample evidence of the role of historic
The ’picture in our heads’ of outgroups
hostilities and ’macro-ecological’ factors
in the domestic or external environment
such as the ethnic group-composition,
have been the subject of numerous in-
significant occupational patterns, etc. in
vestigations since Katz and Braly ana-
studies of national images and of regional
lyzed stereotypes of various racial
differences in prejudice patterns. That
groups.3 This research, with increasingly
factors at these different levels, combined
sophisticated methods including surveys
in different theoretical frameworks, are
and content analysis of mass media and
correlated with outgroup attitudes, and
popular literature, has shed much light
that all of these correlations are imper-
over the content of national images or
fect, simply means that we are faced
stereotypes, their distribution, and their
with a problem of multiple causation.
degree of stability.
Since none of these levels or approaches
In their efforts to go beyond the de-
can tell the whole story we must include
scription of attitudes toward outgroups
the others and seek to understand the
and to try to explain how such attitudes
complex interrelation within and between
are formed and changed, researchers
the various categories of explanatory
have utilized a great variety of explan-
variables in order to piece together as
atory, or independent, variables. Some
full an explanation as possible.
have concentrated on explanatory factors
A paradigm for integrating the wide
at the level of the individual, looking for
and varied range of explanatory factors,
relationships between his psychological
offered by M. Brewster Smith,4 forms the
make-up, the socio-economic conditions
basis for the outline of variables shown
of his life or his experience with out-
in Fig. 1. This framework stresses in par-
groups and his attitudes toward these
ticular the interrelationships among the
outgroups. Others have looked for ex-
independent variables and emphasizes the
planations in the individual’s social rela-
complexity of the multiple causation of
tions and in his interactions with groups
foreign policy attitudes at different levels
that might influence his thinking, while
of specificity.
still others have looked at the even more
The variable categories in I, II, III, IV
encompassing level of societal influences
and V may, as we have already indi-
from broad cultural patterns or com-
cated, influence the attitude directly as
monly shared historical experiences. At
shown by the heavy lines. These relation-
each level - the individual, the group and
ships, however, are considerably compli-
the societal - there is a considerable
cated by the mutual interdependence of
number of theories and hypotheses link-
the variables, as indicated by the dotted
ing independent variables to the attitudes
lines. Thus, many of the psychological
they seek to explain. And at each level
variables used in attitude studies have


151


152
been found to be related to socio-eco-
actions of the United Nations or the
nomic variables like occupation, status
European Community. The reason for
and particularly education; the nature
distinguishing between different categor-
and effect of primary group relations also
ies of dependent variables according to
vary with socio-economic factors, as do
object-specificity is double. It is partly
organizational memberships, relevance
because we expect the more specific
of reference groups etc. Further com-
attitudes to be derivative - at least to
plications arise from the question as to
some extent - of the more inclusive
how these explanatory factors relate to
orientations, and partly because we
specific dependent variables such as
expect that the explanatory variables
attitudes toward a particular nation or
affect them in different degrees and
policy-measure.
combinations. We expect, for instance,
While relatively object-specific attitu-
that psychological variables are more
des may be directly influenced by these
strongly related to general political
factors, they are often conceived of as
orientations than to more specific atti-
organized in broader, more general,
tudes and still more to issue-specific
political orientations. Such orientations
opinions. These, in turn, we expect to be
might then be treated as intervening var-
relatively more strongly affected by more
iables between the explanatory variables
direct circumstantial factors like for
just discussed and the more specific
instance economic or vocational inter-
attitudes under investigation.5 They would
ests.7 Between the attitude (or the opin-
include such relatively well-organized
ion) under investigation, a screen repre-
belief-sets as the broad ’-isms’ encom-
senting immediately antecedent situa-
passing internal as well as international
tional factors has been interposed. The
politics, e.g. Socialism, Conservatism,
screen illustrates how the final outcome
Liberalism, etc., or the less structured
of the motivational forces at work from
’-isms’ more specifically referring to
I to VII may be significantly modified by
external relations such as Ethnocentrism,
such situational factors as an event
Internationalism, Isolationism etc. An
affecting the context in which the attitude
attitude is often defined as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT