Description:

One view of democracy suggests that in order to be viewed as legitimate, a government must take into account the public's wishes regarding the specifics of public policies that might be implemented.  Surveys are a mechanism by which officials can learn about their constituents.  But surveys often ask people to make soft and ambiguous judgments about how they would like their tax dollars spent (e.g., “Do you think government spending on the military should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?”), and many studies have shown that the public lacks detailed knowledge on the issues about which they are asked.  Is it possible instead to gauge informed and precise assessments of the public's preferences?  One method intended to do so is contingent valuation.  The method has been used for decades by academics and by government officials without much public attention, but it has also been the subject of vigorous criticism in the context of high-stakes litigation, led early on by Nobel Prize Winner Danny Kahneman.  This talk will describe how the method works (a representative sample of respondents are interviewed in their homes, given information about a situation, and asked to make judgments about the situation, and eventually vote on a proposition) and will review evidence evaluating its effectiveness and the cogency of the criticisms launched against it.  The evidence provides insights into how people make judgments and into whether the public can live up to the requirements of democracy.

Jon Krosnick is a social psychologist who does research on attitude formation, change, and effects, on the psychology of political behavior, and on survey research methods. He is the Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences, Professor of Communication, Political Science, and (by courtesy) Psychology. At Stanford, in addition to his professorships, he directs the Political Psychology Research Group and has directed the Summer Institute in Political Psychology.