Search

There are considerable concerns about public perceptions of intelligence stemming directly from the highly politicized nature of intelligence estimates in the run-up to the US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003. In this article we use a new public attitudes dataset to provide the first ever analysis of British public confidence in MI6 and Government use of intelligence. The article demonstrates that the public have relatively high confidence in the intelligence produced by MI6 but are extremely sceptical about how the Government will present that intelligence. Using an ordered logit model this article then examines the factors that influence public perceptions of both intelligence and Government, finding that women are a lot less confident in both the intelligence services and government presentation of intelligence than men, suggesting that this might help explain gender differences in support for military action. The study also demonstrates that party identifiers and Catholics have very low confidence in the intelligence produced by MI6. The study shows that public confidence in both government and intelligence has a strong effect on support for preventive military action against terror camps, suggesting that the intelligence agencies need to avoid being contaminated by political agendas as much as possible if the intelligence case for future military actions is to be supported by the public. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The simple 5‐point Likert format is ubiquitous in British public opinion research. Yet recent thinking on survey response questions the validity of even the simplest measures. Respondents seek satisficing strategies to cope with the cognitive demands of answering, and the Likert midpoint provides such a strategy. This suggests that 4‐point scales might be more appropriate. Evidence is presented on who chooses the midpoint, and what they do when denied it. Omitting the midpoint may impair validity, because some respondents opt for it when they have no basis for choosing between agreement and disagreement. Yet omission may improve validity, because the midpoint is also used as a safe haven by a ‘silent minority’, taking refuge in that option rather than confessing to an unpopular viewpoint. The implication is that the midpoint should be offered on obscure topics, where many respondents will have no basis for choice, but omitted on controversial topics, where social desirability is uppermost in respondents’ minds. Applying these principles to the 2001 BES demonstrates that varying format by topic thus is not only advisable but also straightforward in practical terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]