Suchergebnisse

People categorize themselves and others, creating ingroup and outgroup distinctions. In American politics, parties constitute the in- and outgroups, and party leaders hold sway in articulating party positions. A party leader's endorsement of a policy can be persuasive, inducing co-partisans to take the same position. In contrast, a party leader's endorsement may polarize opinion, inducing out-party identifiers to take a contrary position. Using survey experiments from the 2008 presidential election, I examine whether in- and out-party candidate cues-John McCain and Barack Obama-affected partisan opinion. The results indicate that in-party leader cues do not persuade but that out-party leader cues polarize. This finding holds in an experiment featuring President Bush in which his endorsement did not persuade Republicans but it polarized Democrats. Lastly, I compare the effect of party leader cues to party label cues. The results suggest that politicians, not parties, function as polarizing cues. Adapted from the source document.

The issue of gender, politics, and the judiciary has widely been reviewed. Previous research hasobserved judges craft both gender motivated and other self interested decisions. Rather thanconducting an examination into possible gender motivated decision making; an experimentalinvestigation is employed to examine the acceptance rates of perceived gender motivateddecisions by the Supreme Court. This study employs the use of cues (information shortcuts)presented to participants as to the gender of the justice in a Supreme Court decision regardingwomen's rights in order to measure differences in acceptance rates. It is theorized that arelationship exists between a perceived gender motivated decision and a decline in acceptancerates of specific decision; or in other words when it appears a judge is acting in a self interestedmanner through this will yield lower rates of publics' acceptance of the Court's decision. Theprevious theory is advanced further to suggest as to when a judge issues an opinion or behaves ina way that goes against general expectations the actions are perceived by the public to be morecredible. This is demonstrated in the study below which finds when a female Supreme CourtJustice issues a majority opinion that is against women's rights the decision enjoys a statisticallysignificant greater rate of acceptance; than a male justice issuing the same decision. This findingparallels with previous research across multiple disciplines of political science, psychology, andcommunications on credibility of a communicator (Supreme Court Justice) and the use of a cue(gender).

The issue of gender, politics, and the judiciary has widely been reviewed. Previous research hasobserved judges craft both gender motivated and other self interested decisions. Rather thanconducting an examination into possible gender motivated decision making; an experimentalinvestigation is employed to examine the acceptance rates of perceived gender motivateddecisions by the Supreme Court. This study employs the use of cues (information shortcuts)presented to participants as to the gender of the justice in a Supreme Court decision regardingwomen's rights in order to measure differences in acceptance rates. It is theorized that arelationship exists between a perceived gender motivated decision and a decline in acceptancerates of specific decision; or in other words when it appears a judge is acting in a self interestedmanner through this will yield lower rates of publics' acceptance of the Court's decision. Theprevious theory is advanced further to suggest as to when a judge issues an opinion or behaves ina way that goes against general expectations the actions are perceived by the public to be morecredible. This is demonstrated in the study below which finds when a female Supreme CourtJustice issues a majority opinion that is against women's rights the decision enjoys a statisticallysignificant greater rate of acceptance; than a male justice issuing the same decision. This findingparallels with previous research across multiple disciplines of political science, psychology, andcommunications on credibility of a communicator (Supreme Court Justice) and the use of a cue(gender).

The issue of gender, politics, and the judiciary has widely been reviewed. Previous research has observed judges craft both gender motivated and other self interested decisions. Rather than conducting an examination into possible gender motivated decision making; an experimental investigation is employed to examine the acceptance rates of perceived gender motivated decisions by the Supreme Court. This study employs the use of cues (information shortcuts) presented to participants as to the gender of the justice in a Supreme Court decision regarding women's rights in order to measure differences in acceptance rates. It is theorized that a relationship exists between a perceived gender motivated decision and a decline in acceptance rates of specific decision; or in other words when it appears a judge is acting in a self interested manner through this will yield lower rates of publics' acceptance of the Court's decision. The previous theory is advanced further to suggest as to when a judge issues an opinion or behaves in a way that goes against general expectations the actions are perceived by the public to be more credible. This is demonstrated in the study below which finds when a female Supreme Court Justice issues a majority opinion that is against women's rights the decision enjoys a statistically significant greater rate of acceptance; than a male justice issuing the same decision. This finding parallels with previous research across multiple disciplines of political science, psychology, and communications on credibility of a communicator (Supreme Court Justice) and the use of a cue (gender).