Search results

For much of Barack Obama's presidential run and his subsequent two terms as president he has been dogged by accusations that he was not born in the US, and is therefore ineligible to be president. In order to explain the continuing prevalence of this view, despite the evidence to the contrary, Josh Pasek looks at whether or not such 'birthers' are motivated by partisanship of racial prejudice. They find that while on the surface the 'birther' view is motivated by party ideology and racism, such views actually lead people to dislike President Obama, and thus leaves them more open to accepting claims that he was not born in the US.

Abstract
Partisans appear to hold very different information about climate change, with Republicans more likely to respond to knowledge questions incorrectly than Democrats or Independents. As polarization undermines the ability of science to inform policy, clarifying why partisans report different science knowledge is vital. This study uses novel measurement to differentiate among knowledge, misinformation, guessing, and rejection while identifying covariates of these cognitions. First, we find that Republicans' incorrect beliefs about climate change stem from a mix of guessing, misperceptions, and rejection. Second, multiple cognitions appear closely linked to partisanship, suggesting politically motivated reasoning as likely driving knowledge differences. Finally, partisan knowledge differences about climate change do not reflect broader polarization of science knowledge but are limited to select issues.

Abstract
Survey researchers today can choose between relatively higher-cost probability sample telephone surveys and lower-cost surveys of nonprobability samples of potential respondents who complete questionnaires via the internet. Previous studies generally indicated that the former yield more accurate distributions of variables, but little work to date has explored the impact of mode and sampling on associations between variables and trends over time. The current study did so using parallel surveys conducted in 2010 focused on opinions, events, behavioral intentions, and behaviors involving that year's Decennial Census. A few comparisons indicated that the two data streams yielded similar results, but the two methods frequently yielded different results, often strikingly so, and the results yielded by the probability samples seem likely to be the more accurate ones.

Abstract
Researchers have long known that the terms used in questions posed to respondents shape the answers they give. Processes underlying these differences have generally been attributed to respondents' interpretations of the questions (i.e., what do the terms lead them to focus on) and examined as a framing effect. Yet evidence that people often answer questions they do not fully understand means it is also possible that some of this difference may stem from respondents' ability to parse what the questions are asking about (i.e., do they comprehend the question). In three online survey experiments, we manipulate wordings for policy attitude questions about the DREAM Act, Trump's trade disputes, and the Affordable Care Act to assess how both question comprehension and interpretation depend on the wordings selected. We find that reported attitudes vary as a joint function of both processes. By comparing response patterns and simulating individuals' "informed responses" across wordings, we can disentangle differences due to incomplete understandings (and misunderstandings) from those attributable to partisan interpretations. Evidence that individuals with greater topical knowledge better recognize the similarity of different wordings confirms that some of the wording effect is associated not just with framing, but also with comprehension.

Although scholars consider it important for citizens to seek diverse information to optimize citizenship, a growing body of research suggests that many people predominantly expose themselves to information that confirms their previous beliefs. Using four waves of survey data from an online panel of 2,450 Americans, this study explores a disconnect between information values and practices to identify (1) whether citizens exemplify the diversity-seeking values endorsed in communication scholarship, (2) whether individuals who hold diversity-seeking values enact these values, and (3) whether diversity-seeking values and traits are emblematic of good democratic citizenship. Results suggest that nearly half of respondents either did not hold diversity-seeking values or failed to actualize the values they expressed. Individuals who held diversity-seeking values were more politically knowledgeable and more likely to have voted in 2014, regardless of their diversity-seeking traits.

Following racially charged events, individuals often diverge in perceptions of what happened and how justice should be served. Examining data gathered shortly after the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri alongside reactions to a novel officer-involved shooting, we unpack the processes by which racial divisions emerge. Even in a controlled information environment, white Americans preferred information that supported claims of a justified shooting. Conversely, Black Americans preferred information that implied that the officer behaved inappropriately. These differences stemmed from two distinct processes: we find some evidence for a form of race-based motivated reasoning and strong evidence for belief updating based on racially distinct priors. Differences in summary judgments were larger when individuals identified strongly with their racial group or when expectations about the typical behaviors of Black Americans and police diverged. The findings elucidate processes whereby individuals in different social groups come to accept differing narratives about contentious events.

AbstractThis study leverages a survey experiment in the lead up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election to evaluate how partisan biases, poll results, and their methodological quality interact to shape people's assessments of polling accuracy and electoral expectations. In a nationally representative sample, we find that individuals disproportionately find polls more credible when their preferred candidate is leading. Partisan biases are mitigated when the polls themselves vary in objective indicators of quality: while more educated respondents are more likely to identify high-quality polls accurately, low education respondents' bias was reduced when they encountered polls with varying methodological quality. Finally, these moderators influence respondents' electoral expectations as well. We discuss the implications for journalistic coverage of polls, public opinion, and political polarization.