Measuring Democracy Thoughts

            People have a schema of Democracy, which individuals use to identify and communicate about the concept of Democracy. People also have experiences that relate to this schema, causing each individual to formulate beliefs and feelings about Democracy. These beliefs and feelings are collectively called “attitudes.” The attitudes that people purport to have are expressed attitudes. Expressed attitudes are subject to influences outside of the individual, and one source of outside influence is social acceptance. Evaluating the function of a schema of Democracy, a person's expressed attitude toward Democracy, and the individual's perceived social pressure relating to those expressed attitudes provides a snapshot of a psychological trait that I call “Democratic Proclivity.”

            Democratic Proclivity theoretically describes the extent to which a person endorses Democracy. An endorsement of Democracy specifically means that an individual has accepted the potential for abiding by and participating in the creation of the laws of a Democracy. An endorsement of Democracy, therefore, constitutes a personal choice of an individual. This endorsement does not necessarily mean that an individual will accept laws or will participate in Democratic affairs, but rather that the individual has the potential to do so. Essentially, people who have endorsed Democracy will not disregard the rule of law in a Democracy simply because the laws have a democratic origin. People may still disobey laws, of course, like people do every day in Democracies around the world. Those who endorse Democracy may not participate in Democratic affairs, either. Democratic proclivity is an individual trait that characterizes the extent of an endorsement; it does not reflect a tendency to behave (like a personality trait might). Essentially, a person's Democratic Proclivity represents the individual's internal condition to accept Democracy. People with higher proclivity should more easily and more quickly accept Democratic mechanisms.

            Whether a person endorses Democracy depends on whether the person has accepted the potential for Democratic rule of law. The trait of Democratic Proclivity encapsulates an individual's attitudes toward his or her schema of Democracy and the perceived social pressures that encourage or discourage expression of those attitudes. To accurately gauge an individual's attitude, that schema must be triggered. Thus, measures of Democratic Proclivity must explore what the individual's schema entails. The schema’s triggered beliefs and feelings portray the quality of the individual's endorsement. Positive beliefs and feelings portray a positive endorsement, while negative beliefs and feelings portray a negative endorsement. Bear in mind that these attitudes are “expressed attitudes” and do not necessarily indicate true inner attitudes. The trait of Democratic Proclivity is not simply a trait that describes attitudes, however.

            Since Democratic Proclivity describes the extent of a person's endorsement, the trait describes expressed attitudes in terms of their social context. A person's expressed positive attitude in the face of great perceived social pressure against Democracy characterizes an individual with the highest proclivity. The perceived social pressure to accept Democratic ideals does not affect an individual's inner Attitude, but still plays an important role in endorsement. Democratic Proclivity does not attempt to identify “inner attitudes” but rather understand the individual's expressed attitudes. An endorsement means little in the face of great pressure to endorse; likewise great pressure against Democracy would amplify the importance of even the slightest expression of approval. Social acceptance can also provide a window for potential: someone who might otherwise be entirely opposed to public participation in government might at least question this belief if confronted with social pressure to accept Democracy.

            I will propose in the second chapter a tool (in the form of a paper questionnaire) for measuring Democratic Proclivity called the Democratic Proclivity Scale (DPS). Since Proclivity evaluates entirely personal perceptions, the tool is entirely a self-report measure. The following paragraphs conceptualize the scale’s measurement techniques. There are four descriptive objectives of the scale: Democracy schema, beliefs about Democracy, feelings about Democracy, and perceptions of social acceptance regarding Democracy ideals. These four objectives each impact the trait by providing answers to four questions: 1) what do you believe Democracy to be? 2) What do you believe about Democracy? 3) How do you feel about Democracy? 4) How socially acceptable are democracy ideals in your community? The first objective, schema, identifies the range of affairs which trigger democratic attitudes within that person. Both the second and third objectives each contribute information about expressed attitude. The second objective provides information relating to the person's expressed cognitions. The third objective provides information relating to the person's expressed Affect. The fourth objective provides information relating to the social context of the expressed attitude.

            The individual's responses in the DPS infer the extent of the individual's endorsement of democratic affairs. The Cognition and Affect questions on the scale ask an individual to react to: the idea of participating in democratic affairs, the idea of abiding by the laws of a democratic government, and a variety of goals, ideals, and characteristics of Democracy. The DPS weighs these expressed attitudes toward the individual's Democracy schema against perceived social acceptance. The main purpose of the DPS is to measure the individual's Proclivity to Democracy (as an independent concept), so the individual's reactions to behaviors outside of his or her own concept of Democracy have limited importance. Since John’s schema of Democracy includes only voting, then his attitude toward branched government does not reflect his attitude toward Democracy. His attitude toward branched government reflects only his attitude toward branched government. The DPS ranks these attitudes toward theoretical concepts outside of John’s schema as less important because the scale rates a proclivity to Democracy. The scale answers the question of how much an individual endorses his or her own concept of Democracy.

            Inner attitudes also have little importance in themselves to the DPS. The scale does not attempt to measure inner attitudes because Democratic Proclivity is a trait of endorsement—an intellectual expression. Contrast the trait of Democratic Proclivity with racial attitudes, a typical effort of social psychologists. Racial attitudes in the United States are subject to a variety of outside influences that challenge their expression such that measuring these attitudes independent of their outside influences is particularly challenging. People may feel pressured to give particular answers or else people may be truly unaware of their underlying inner attitudes. Unlike measuring this inner racial bias, the DPS measures the individual's intellectual acceptance. This is not a tendency to behave, but rather an expression of potential compliance. It is this measure of expressed attitude (in the social context) that should dictate how much weight a person would give a Democratic rule of law. When Socrates was sentenced to death by his fellow Athenians, he respected the laws of Athens and so he did not escape with his cohorts. Socrates did not agree with the extent of his punishment, and had in fact fought against his accusers and other prosecutors. Socrates expressed his support of the rule of law despite a presumed underlying feeling of injustice. Although this is an extreme example, it is a similar quality of expressed acceptance that Democracy utilizes to function.

            Democratic Proclivity is a fluid trait, unlike traditional conceptions of personality. Whether or not a person actually complies could be measured by a person's aggregate compliance with democratic affairs over time; however, the Democratic Proclivity Scale measures the extent of an individual's acceptance of Democracy at one point in time.  A person’s Democratic Proclivity may change over time since perceptions and schemas change over time. Schemas might change as an individual learns about Democracy. Particular events could change an individual’s perception of social acceptance. For instance, the overthrow of Saddam’s regime by the United States and its allies likely caused an increase of the social acceptance of Democracy.

The DPS uses a rationale to describe endorsement in terms of the four objectives. Individuals expressing a positive attitude generally have higher proclivities than those individuals who do not. The DPS attributes the highest proclivity to people who express positive attitudes toward their own conception of Democracy despite perceived social misgivings about Democracy. Social influences are powerful, so I infer that a person who regards Democracy positively in spite of negative pressure has strong regard for democratic ideals. People with both a positive attitude toward Democracy and great social pressures to accept Democracy still have a high proclivity, however. In the case of an individual with a negative attitude, proclivity increases as social acceptance toward Democracy increases because of the powerful effect of social forces. People who seem to endorse traditional theoretical democratic ideals without a positive regard for the concept of Democracy itself have at least some proclivity. These individuals have a higher proclivity than individuals with no positive regard for theoretical democratic ideals combined with negative attitudes toward Democracy because it seems reasonable to infer that these individuals have at least some value for democratic ideals. The following chart precisely conceptualizes endorsement of Democracy in terms of individual personal cases.

            The error included within the conceptualization of Democratic Proclivity scores is due the depth of expressed attitudes. Extreme attitudes more powerfully impact a score. There is typically more error when perceived acceptance and attitude toward schema match because expressed attitudes might be caused by social acceptance. We would expect that an individual would be more likely to respond that he or she endorsed democracy if the social acceptance were high. On the other hand, an individual’s potential to accept democracy would be clear if he or she had an expressed attitude in the face of contradictory social support. Negative expressed attitudes do not pull down scores as much when perceived acceptance is positive because we infer that the individual must endorse democracy enough to tolerate living with people who also endorse democracy. Changing group norms exert powerful individual attitudinal shifts (see the classic Lewin, 1948). Chapter 2 will explore the operationalization of these expressed attitudes and the method of calculating these scores.

Characterizing endorsements in terms of acceptance of a potential for the behavior of abiding by a Democratic rule of law and participating in Democratic affairs operationalizes the endorsement concept. The DPS measures reactions to ideas in order to capture the potential for acceptance, thus proclivity is the extent to which an individual would endorse democratic ideals in a potential opportunity (not necessarily one that currently exists for that person). When and if that potential arises, people with a higher proclivity are hypothetically: more likely to participate in democratic affairs, less likely to speak out against pro-democratic reforms, and more apt to abide by a democratic rule of law.  It is important to emphasize that the DPS does not itself alone reliably predict behavior. One obvious example is the case of an individual named Joe who strongly believes in the value of Democracy and understands voting to be important but resides in a country where there are no free elections. Joe was raised in the United States but was displaced to China because of his employment obligations. Joe may never again participate in democratic affairs because he now lives in a country where there are no free elections, regardless of how he feels about them. The DPS can help predict behavior, however, when a number of other factors are considered. I call the set of factors outside of Democratic Proclivity that influence whether a person participates in democratic affairs “External Factors.” Examples of such variables include peer pressure, threats of force, or other situational circumstances.

            External factors moderate the effect of Democratic Proclivity on behavior. All external factors influence whether a person participates in democratic affairs such that external factors contribute either positively or negatively to a person’s likelihood of participation. In Joe’s case, the communist nature of the Chinese government was an external factor that prohibited him from behaving democratically in such a way that he was inclined to do. External factors do not impact Democratic Proclivity. Joe still believed that democracy was ultimately valuable, regardless of his surroundings, and yet he could not behave democratically; thus, his Democratic Proclivity was high despite his non-democratic behavior. Social acceptance of Democratic ideals influences Proclivity because perceptions of acceptance encourage others to accept. Social acceptance does not encourage the perceiver to participate in democratic behaviors, only to abide by the rule of law. Imagine a communist, David, residing in the United States. David perceives that everyone around him supports this United States Democracy despite his reservations. David decides to abide by the laws of the United States regardless of how he feels about the manner in which they were created. David’s perceived social acceptance of democracy did not alter his likelihood to vote in an election, but rather encouraged him to get along with his surroundings. David social surroundings thus “encouraged” him to accept democratic rule of law. Peer pressure, on the other hand, is a powerful external factor. Peer pressure to participate encourages others to participate but it does not strictly encourage others to accept (endorse) Democracy. Peer pressure to participate could be strong without a strong perception of social acceptance. For instance, if Iraqis participated in the election simply to please the occupying force but no one believed in the process, then social influence might be high without a high perceived social acceptance.

            In most cases, when perceived social acceptance is high, peer pressure to participate will also be high. If everyone thinks that Democracy is beneficial, then people will likely encourage each other to participate. This is not guaranteed, however. Even within the United States some people might not experience much peer pressure to participate in democratic affairs, and those people do not have to participate. However, their perceived social acceptance could still be high. I have a friend in the United States whose parents had never encouraged him to vote because they thought one vote did not matter. Still, his family is law-abiding and believed in democratic ideals. Despite high perceived social acceptance, my friend had little peer pressure to vote when he was young. There is no logical purely logical connection between perceived social acceptance and peer pressure to participate. One of these could exist without the other.

            People may be aware of some External Factors, but there are other variables that people may not be aware of that also contribute to the likelihood that an individual will participate in democratic affairs. Political scientists and political psychologists have identified a plethora of factors that influence an individual’s likelihood of voting. For instance, Fowler, Baker, & Dawes (2007) measured genetic effects on the likelihood to vote. If Fowler et al’s findings are valid, then most people would not recognize this factor at all! Iraqis may have been aware of the potential for danger when they vote, but they may not necessarily be aware of the genetic effects on their likelihood to vote. A commonly held belief is the effect of weather on voting behavior. Inclement weather lowers voting turnout, and I know for certain that some people consciously consider what the weather is like before they vote. Weather is another external factor that influences voting behavior.

It is impossible to predict behavior using the DPS without considering external factors. External factors powerfully influence behavior. Individuals whose behaviors acted against democratic initiatives could still have a high democratic proclivity. Proclivity is much different from behavior. Social psychologists find a weak correlation between general expressed attitudes and general behaviors. Many people believe that a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy, and yet many of those same people spend too much time on the couch. Similarly, people might believe a certain democratic initiative to be beneficial while simultaneously speaking out against the same initiative. Perhaps Mao has a positive attitude toward Democracy, but he experiences strong social pressures to speak against Democracy because he is a communist party leader in China. external factors can create circumstances that decisively influence behavior regardless of Proclivity. Here is one obvious example: Imagine that you strongly believe in democratic values, and it is Election Day. Your significant other has an emergency that would compel you to miss voting. You decide that being available to support your significant other is more valuable than democratic participation. In this case, and in many others, the missed opportunity to participate in a democratic affair does not mean that your Democratic Proclivity is low. It is also conceivable that a person may negatively regard Democracy but participate anyway if he or she feels pressured socially.

Democratic Proclivity could be used to help predict behavior if we do take into account external factors. Democratic Proclivity could help predict whether a person votes in an election, for instance, when used in conjunction with external factors that relate to participation in elections that political scientists, political psychologists, sociologists and others have identified. Factors such as peer pressure, media attention, and situational circumstances contribute to the likelihood that an individual might participate in democratic affairs. A person with a high Democratic Proclivity would participate with supportive External Factors. However, if the External Factors are supportive of democratic participation and the proclivity is low, or if external forces are discouraging and the proclivity is high, then predicting participation is difficult.

Here are two summary examples: On Election Day in the United States, citizens have the opportunity to vote. Whether a person participates in this democratic affair represents the outcome of a function between the person’s Democratic Proclivity and external factors. If the external factors are favorable to voting, the person believes that voting is important, and the person feels the desire to vote, then the person will likely participate in the election. The United States invasion of Iraq forced Iraqi citizens to freely consider how to react to democratic initiatives. Consider the case of an Iraqi leader considering whether to represent his country on a democratic parliament. His decision is the result of his Democratic Proclivity and external factors. If, for example, the parliament is under constant threat of attack, the leader views Democracy as immoral—contrary to the tenants of Islamic faith, and he conceives of Democracy as a bureaucratic impediment to a nation’s success, then the Iraqi leader would not accept a parliamentary post.

            Keep in mind that predicting behavior is only one function of the DPS. The DPS measures endorsement that characterizes the potential of an individual’s acceptance for Democratic rule of law. Since freedom and equality of participation characterize the liberal theoretical conception of Democracy, people freely and individually choose whether to participate in Democracy or not. If one is highly mistrustful of democratic affairs, or if one misinterprets the premise of Democracy, or if one believes Democracy is immoral then one would not likely participate freely without a large force of external factors. Without a mass of individuals possessing positive Democratic proclivity, Democracy (as Western policy-makers conceive of Democracy) functions much less effectively. The DPS provides a tool for measuring this basic and vital element of Democratic functioning.