Mass Publics 201prevalence of mirror images. The United States (strong and brave) and its leader (safe
and humane) were compared to Iran (weak and cowardly) and its leader Ayatollah
Khomeini (dangerous and ruthless). Yet whether this public perception of Iran had an
impact on top decision makers is unclear.^20
Was President Car ter’s exclusive focus on the hostages because of the attention the
public was paying to the hostages? Or did Car ter’s personality characteristics predis-
pose him to focus so exclusively and so passionately on the hostages? The influence
that mass publics have on foreign policy might be explained in three ways: by com-
mon traits they share with elites, mass public opinion actually influencing decision
makers, or masses acting relatively in de pen dently.
elites and Masses: common traits
First, it could be argued that elites and masses hold similar beliefs and act in similar
ways because they share common psychological and biological characteristics. For exam-
ple, individuals, like animals, are said to have an innate drive to gain, protect, and defend
territory— the “territorial imperative.” This, according to some, explains the preoccupa-
tion with securing territorial bound aries that groups feel belong to them. Israel’s defense
of its perceived ancestral homeland is opposed by the Palestinians’ claim to the same ter-
ritory. Individuals and socie ties also share the frustration- aggression syndrome: when
socie ties become frustrated, just like individuals, they become aggressive. Frustration, of
course, can arise from a number of dif er ent sources, including economic shocks such as
those Germany sufered after World War I or those Rus sia experienced in the 1990s.
The prob lem with both the territorial imperative and the frustration- aggression
notion is that even if all individuals and socie ties share these innate biological predispo-
sitions, not all leaders and all peoples act on these predispositions. So general predisposi-
tions of all socie ties, or the similarities in predispositions between elites and masses,
cannot explain the extreme variation found in individual be hav ior and state be hav ior.
Another possibility is that elites and masses share common traits diferentiated by
gender. Male elites and masses possess characteristics common to each other, whereas
female elites and masses share traits dif er ent from those of males. These diferences can
explain po liti cal be hav ior. One much- discussed diference is that males, both elites and
masses, are power seeking, whereas women are consensus builders, more collaborative,
and more inclined toward compromise. One study, for example, sees the direct impli-
cations of these gender diferences for peace negotiations. Because women often come
to the negotiating table with experience in civic activism, nongovernmental organ-
izations, and citizen- empowering movements, they bring with them dif er ent atti-
tudes and skill- sets. Women negotiators like Mary Robinson, UN special envoy for
the Great Lakes region in Africa, have brought in local women’s groups leaders in hopes
of reaching better outcomes.^21 If there are diferences in male and female attitudes and