Public opinion

@article{crossref1938japan,
    title = "Japan in American Public Opinion",
    year = "1938",
    journal = "International Affairs",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/3020048",
    doi = "10.2307/3020048"
}

@article{eells1942public,
    author = "Eells, Richard S. F.",
    title = "Public Opinion in American Statecraft",
    year = "1942",
    journal = "Public Opinion Quarterly",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/265561",
    doi = "10.1086/265561",
    number = "3",
    pages = "391",
    volume = "6"
}

@misc{hofstadter1963antiintellectualism2,
    author = "Hofstadter, R",
    title = "Anti-intellectualism in American Life",
    year = "1963",
    howpublished = "New York, A. Knopf",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hofstadter, R., 1963, Anti-intellectualism in American Life: New York, A. Knopf.}"
}

@misc{hofstadter1963the3,
    author = "Hofstadter, R",
    title = "The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays",
    year = "1963",
    howpublished = "New York",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hofstadter, R., 1963, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays: New York.}"
}

@misc{fair1974the1,
    author = "Fair, C",
    title = "The New Nonsense",
    year = "1974",
    howpublished = "The End of Rational Consensus: New York, Simon and Schuster, 287 p",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Fair, C., 1974, The New Nonsense: The End of Rational Consensus: New York, Simon and Schuster, 287 p.}"
}

@misc{russell1986survey4,
    author = "Russell, C",
    title = "Survey Finds Half in U.S. Reject Evolution Theory",
    year = "1986",
    howpublished = "Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 4",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Russell, C., 1986, Survey Finds Half in U.S. Reject Evolution Theory: Creation/ Evolution Newsletter, v. 6, p. 4.}"
}

@article{doi1023073234703,
    author = "Bolce, L. and Maio, Gerald De and Muzzio, Douglas",
    title = "The Equal Rights Amendment, Public Opinion, \& American Constitutionalism",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Polity",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c05f58e5ef7fff3efd3f13c114dfa7834571a838",
    doi = "10.2307/3234703",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "4",
    pages = "551-569",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "4",
    semanticscholar_id = "c05f58e5ef7fff3efd3f13c114dfa7834571a838",
    volume = "19"
}

@article{doi101093ijpor12151,
    author = "Fan, D. and Tims, A. R.",
    title = "THE IMPACT OF THE NEWS MEDIA ON PUBLIC OPINION: AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 1987–1988",
    year = "1989",
    journal = "International Journal of Public Opinion Research",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a2e06997f72ead46ca41c33c947e8a927b3d917c",
    doi = "10.1093/IJPOR/1.2.151",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "151-163",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "55",
    semanticscholar_id = "a2e06997f72ead46ca41c33c947e8a927b3d917c",
    volume = "1"
}

Whether American courts either do or should represent public opinion is a long‐debated issue. Some court rulings agree with nationwide public opinion polls, while others do not. Overall, does the appeals process bring judicial policy‐making more closely into line with American public opinion? Evidence from nationwide polls since the mid‐1930s suggests that U.S. Supreme Court decisions and federal appeals courts decisions better represent American public opinion than do the decisions of federal district courts or of state courts. A lower‐level court decision that agrees with nationwide public opinion is much more likely to be upheld upon appeal by an upper‐level court. The Supreme Court's certiorari decisions disproportionately select for review lower court decisions that disagree with nationwide polls. Five reasons for this pattern are offered.

@article{doi101111j174713462003tb00169x,
    author = "Marshall, T.",
    title = "Representing Public Opinion: American Courts and the Appeals Process",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Politics and Policy",
    abstract = "Whether American courts either do or should represent public opinion is a long‐debated issue. Some court rulings agree with nationwide public opinion polls, while others do not. Overall, does the appeals process bring judicial policy‐making more closely into line with American public opinion? Evidence from nationwide polls since the mid‐1930s suggests that U.S. Supreme Court decisions and federal appeals courts decisions better represent American public opinion than do the decisions of federal district courts or of state courts. A lower‐level court decision that agrees with nationwide public opinion is much more likely to be upheld upon appeal by an upper‐level court. The Supreme Court's certiorari decisions disproportionately select for review lower court decisions that disagree with nationwide polls. Five reasons for this pattern are offered.",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e076d10c7d83b2aee4ded869584a0204e199e64",
    doi = "10.1111/J.1747-1346.2003.TB00169.X",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "4",
    pages = "726-747",
    semanticscholar_id = "7e076d10c7d83b2aee4ded869584a0204e199e64",
    volume = "31"
}

This article focuses on the ways religious factors might influence public opinion on foreign policy issues. It reviews the latest political science perspectives on the shape of public opinion on foreign policy that have emphasized the coherence of competing public orientations toward American policy in the world. One section considers the existing work on religion and public opinion, and discovers—through incidental evidence— that religion has had considerable impact on those orientations.

@incollection{guth2010religion,
    author = "Guth, James L.",
    title = "Religion and American Public Opinion",
    year = "2010",
    booktitle = "The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics",
    abstract = "This article focuses on the ways religious factors might influence public opinion on foreign policy issues. It reviews the latest political science perspectives on the shape of public opinion on foreign policy that have emphasized the coherence of competing public orientations toward American policy in the world. One section considers the existing work on religion and public opinion, and discovers—through incidental evidence— that religion has had considerable impact on those orientations.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326529.003.0009",
    doi = "10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326529.003.0009",
    pages = "243-265"
}

@article{s2a627bd9f62daafa1155a1ee6a45fd17274af2334,
    author = "Strauss, C.",
    title = "Making Sense of Public Opinion: American Discourses about Immigration and Social Programs",
    year = "2012",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a627bd9f62daafa1155a1ee6a45fd17274af2334",
    is_oa = "true",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "2",
    semanticscholar_id = "a627bd9f62daafa1155a1ee6a45fd17274af2334"
}

@article{doi101017s0047404514000323,
    author = "Jiao, J.",
    title = "Claudia Strauss, Making sense of public opinion: American discourses about immigration and social programs . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pp. xxviii, 424. Hb. $89.10.",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Language in Society",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8359ca50b402515ac105857cc4d38635268b678c",
    doi = "10.1017/S0047404514000323",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "3",
    pages = "369-370",
    semanticscholar_id = "8359ca50b402515ac105857cc4d38635268b678c",
    volume = "43"
}

@article{doi1011111478930212053129,
    author = "Stanley, L.",
    title = "Making Sense of Public Opinion: American Discourses about Immigration and Social Programs by Claudia Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 439pp., £60.00, ISBN 978 1107019928",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Political Studies Review",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/50f103ef8d80de249e756f0fbe0e58a6db00ee87",
    doi = "10.1111/1478-9302.12053\_129",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "329-329",
    semanticscholar_id = "50f103ef8d80de249e756f0fbe0e58a6db00ee87",
    volume = "12"
}

@article{doi1011770094306114562201zz,
    author = "Mccall, L.",
    title = "Making Sense of Public Opinion: American Discourses About Immigration and Social Programs",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f4211921e12ad3bfbf38b9d6085eddddcf72cc5d",
    doi = "10.1177/0094306114562201zz",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1",
    pages = "121-123",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "34",
    semanticscholar_id = "f4211921e12ad3bfbf38b9d6085eddddcf72cc5d",
    volume = "44"
}

@book{erikson2015american,
    author = "Erikson, Robert and Tedin, Kent",
    title = "American Public Opinion",
    year = "2015",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315664866",
    doi = "10.4324/9781315664866"
}

@article{doi101111etho12114,
    author = "Friedman, J.",
    title = "Making Sense of Public Opinion: American Discourses About Immigration and Social Programs. Claudia Strauss. Cambridge University Press. 2012. Vii–424 pp.",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Ethos",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3cb6106bedc4e789b5320b69e5842c03d876b21a",
    doi = "10.1111/ETHO.12114",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "2",
    semanticscholar_id = "3cb6106bedc4e789b5320b69e5842c03d876b21a",
    volume = "44"
}

@book{erikson2019american,
    author = "Erikson, Robert S. and Tedin, Kent L.",
    title = "American Public Opinion",
    year = "2019",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034746",
    doi = "10.4324/9781351034746"
}

Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and “100 years from now.” (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.

@article{doi101371journalpone0294028,
    author = "Rojahn, Jessica and Palu, Andrea and Skiena, Steven and Jones, Jason Jeffrey",
    title = "American public opinion on artificial intelligence in healthcare",
    year = "2023",
    journal = "PLOS ONE",
    abstract = "Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and “100 years from now.” (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.",
    url = "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294028\&type=printable",
    doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0294028",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "11",
    pages = "e0294028",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "32",
    semanticscholar_id = "deb50c41923f8a859ef333126b5134e53260dc77",
    volume = "18"
}

@misc{erikson2023american,
    author = "Erikson, Robert S. and Tedin, Kent L.",
    title = "American Public Opinion",
    year = "2023",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003326847",
    doi = "10.4324/9781003326847"
}

@article{doi101007s10903026019111,
    author = "Pernat, Claire A and Rico, Mayra and Franklin, Kokulo and Blackburn, Christine Crudo",
    title = "Framing, Partisanship, and Race Shape American Public Opinion Regarding Immigration Status Reporting in U.S. Hospitals.",
    year = "2026",
    journal = "Journal of immigrant and minority health",
    url = "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/3953801/",
    doi = "10.1007/s10903-026-01911-1",
    pmcid = "3953801",
    pmid = "41995972"
}

How should we measure "pure" or "true" independents? For years, the respective item required a respondent to volunteer that answer. Recent surveys have moved toward presenting it explicitly. Those that do produce estimates of pure independents that are much larger than in past surveys. We present evidence of this phenomenon across multiple surveys and ask: Are self-administered surveys overcounting independents, or are traditional live-interviewer surveys undercounting independents? We answer that question by comparing live-interview and self-administered samples from the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Studies, by undertaking tests to rule out mode effects (including an experiment), and by seeing which question wording correlates more strongly with measures of latent ideology, vote choice, and ratings of the parties. Our findings suggest that surveys that include an explicit response option, allowing Americans to self-identify easily as "(pure) independent," offer a more precise measurement of the concept of party identification. This has implications for the study of independents, as well as for discussions about polarization and party-system dealignment.

@article{doi101093poqnfaf065,
    author = "Dyck, Joshua J and Santucci, Jack",
    title = "Measuring Party Identification in Public Opinion Surveys of Americans.",
    year = "2026",
    journal = "Public opinion quarterly",
    abstract = {How should we measure "pure" or "true" independents? For years, the respective item required a respondent to volunteer that answer. Recent surveys have moved toward presenting it explicitly. Those that do produce estimates of pure independents that are much larger than in past surveys. We present evidence of this phenomenon across multiple surveys and ask: Are self-administered surveys overcounting independents, or are traditional live-interviewer surveys undercounting independents? We answer that question by comparing live-interview and self-administered samples from the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Studies, by undertaking tests to rule out mode effects (including an experiment), and by seeing which question wording correlates more strongly with measures of latent ideology, vote choice, and ratings of the parties. Our findings suggest that surveys that include an explicit response option, allowing Americans to self-identify easily as "(pure) independent," offer a more precise measurement of the concept of party identification. This has implications for the study of independents, as well as for discussions about polarization and party-system dealignment.},
    url = "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13034036/",
    doi = "10.1093/poq/nfaf065",
    pmcid = "PMC13034036",
    pmid = "41918794"
}

Gastric cancer (GC) is a public health concern due to estimates indicating it ranks among the most prevalent cancers and leading causes of cancer-related deaths globally. In Latin America, a region significantly impacted by high mortality and incidence of GC, chronic H. pylori infection remains the primary cause of GC, with an overall prevalence of around 42.5% from 2015 to 2022. Asian countries have developed innovative strategies for primary and secondary prevention. Among the most notable primary and secondary screening programs were endoscopy-based screening in Japan and South Korea; a nationwide population-based H. pylori eradication program in Bhutan; mass H. pylori eradication in the Matsu Islands of Taiwan; and a recently developed family-based H. pylori eradication strategy in China. In this Opinion Review, we discuss the opportunities and pitfalls of implementing an individual-and family-screening-based H. pylori eradication strategy for GC prevention in Latin American intermediate- and high-risk areas.

@article{doi101111hel70110,
    author = "Portillo-Miño, José Darío and Uribe, Javier and Latorre, Gonzalo and Pizarro, Mauricio and Pizarro, Margarita and Palacios, Nilton and Díaz-Garrido, Natalia and Jure, Camila and Reyes-Placencia, Diego and Otero, William and Cifuentes, Sandra and Laudanno, Oscar and Remes-Troche, José M and Piscoya, Alejandro and Riquelme, Arnoldo and Consortium, HOPE Hp‐GC Project",
    title = "Individuals and Family-Screen-to-Treat-Based Helicobacter pylori Eradication Strategy for Gastric Cancer Prevention: A Latin American Perspective.",
    year = "2026",
    journal = "Helicobacter",
    abstract = "Gastric cancer (GC) is a public health concern due to estimates indicating it ranks among the most prevalent cancers and leading causes of cancer-related deaths globally. In Latin America, a region significantly impacted by high mortality and incidence of GC, chronic H. pylori infection remains the primary cause of GC, with an overall prevalence of around 42.5\% from 2015 to 2022. Asian countries have developed innovative strategies for primary and secondary prevention. Among the most notable primary and secondary screening programs were endoscopy-based screening in Japan and South Korea; a nationwide population-based H. pylori eradication program in Bhutan; mass H. pylori eradication in the Matsu Islands of Taiwan; and a recently developed family-based H. pylori eradication strategy in China. In this Opinion Review, we discuss the opportunities and pitfalls of implementing an individual-and family-screening-based H. pylori eradication strategy for GC prevention in Latin American intermediate- and high-risk areas.",
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42010149/",
    doi = "10.1111/hel.70110",
    pmid = "42010149"
}